netdev - Re: [patch] ipvs: off by one in set_sctp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130423022243.GQ12017@verge.net.au>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:22:43 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Cc:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [patch] ipvs: off by one in set_sctp_state()

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:03:28AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> 
> 	Hello,
> 
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
> 
> > > 	There are more confusing (still, non-fatal)
> > > problems in this IPVS-SCTP support, eg.
> > > 
> > >         if (direction == IP_VS_DIR_OUTPUT)
> > > -               event++;
> > > +               event *= 2;
> > > 
> > > 	I guess we are running with wrong timeouts.
> > 
> > IMHO there seem to be many problems with SCTP, but it is good to
> > fix the ones we find as we find them.
> 
> 	At the time I found it (during IPVS optimizations
> development), it didn't looked fatal, I preferred to
> allocate more time for SCTP for debugging.
> 
> > Would you like to make a patch for the above change or should I?
> 
> 	May be the code is correct, my mistake. I was
> confused from the order in sctp_events[] but ipvs_sctp_event_t
> allocates values for _SER states.

Thanks, it sounds like we should study things more carefully
before making any changes.

> > > 	Also, I'm not sure we support properly the
> > > one-way states as done for TCP (IP_VS_DIR_INPUT_ONLY).
> > > May be this code deserves more serious review, for example,
> > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c looks as good
> > > source for comparison.
> > 
> > I believe it does need a more serious review.
> 
> Regards
> 
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html