netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sctp: check the rto_min and rto

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

Message-ID: <52A52B6C.7030305@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 08 Dec 2013 21:31:08 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
CC:	Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@...wei.com>, nhorman@...driver.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sctp: check the rto_min and rto_max

On 12/07/2013 04:12 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 12/07/2013 08:01 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> On 12/07/2013 07:43 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2013 08:17 AM, Wang Weidong wrote:
>>>> rto_min should be smaller than rto_max while rto_max should be larger
>>>> than rto_min. Add two proc_handler for the checking. Add the check in
>>>> sctp_setsockopt_rtoinfo.
>>>>
>>>> Suggested-by: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@...wei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Thanks Wang, also for your second patch.
>>>
>>> Second one looks good to me, thanks for the cleanup!
>>>
>>> I was wondering where 86400000 comes from? Looking through the git
>>> history didn't give much clues and the RFC4960 neither. Clearly,
>>> section 15 of RFC4960 *recommends* as initial values ...
>>>
>>>    RTO.Initial - 3 seconds
>>>    RTO.Min - 1 second
>>>    RTO.Max - 60 seconds
>>>
>>> ... which we have as constants in [1] and are assigned to globals
>>> initially in [2,3] with those recommended values. That's all good.
>>>
>>> But still [not *directly* related to your patch though], where does
>>> 86400000 come from? I expect that's for the max SCTP heartbeat
>>> interval or max cookie lifetime?
>>
>> No, initially it was defined as rto_timer_max and was the upper bound
>> for the rto timer.   When you think about it, it's a bit ridiculous
>> really.  What you are saying is that your rto timer is allowed to
>> grow as long as 1 day, so you would at an absolute maximum retransmit
>> one packet per day :)
> 
> Exactly, maybe initial SCTP implementors already took into account
> we could have SCTP connections to other galaxies, but clearly untested
> so far? :)
> 
> I think we should be absolutely fine with a max configurable upper
> limit of twice the recommended RTO.Max value from the RFC.

That would only put at at 2 min...  That may not be enough in certain
deployments.  Yes, they always have the option to set it per socket,
but that becomes a pain and harder to tune the same app to different
links.  I think 2 hours might be a safer maximum RTO.Max, but I find
it hard to justify shrinking this value.  It isn't really broken
and if someone does set it to 6 hours, they really are shooting
themselves in the foot :)

-vlad

> 
>> I don't think this limit is specified anywhere as is though.  It
>> was something that's been there since the 2.5 days.
>>
>> -vlad

--
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