netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next 0/6] A step closer to RFC 6458 compliancy

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: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1725DEC9@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:36:36 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Geir Ola Vaagland' <geirola@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 0/6] A step closer to RFC 6458 compliancy

From: Of Geir Ola Vaagland
> These patches are part of my master thesis project. I have been searching for discrepancies between
> the socket API specificiation in RFC 6458 and the current Linux SCTP implementation. The following
> patches are my humble attempts at getting somewhat closer to compliancy.

I've just been reading RFC 6458 - HTF did it get past the editors and
then published in its current form?
Lots of the structures have implied padding.
There is an embedded 'struct sockaddr_storage' in the middle of
one structure. In some OS this should never actually be instantiated.

Maybe the interface could have been changed in 2001, but not in 2011.

	David



--
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