netdev - Re: Question on SCTP ABORT chunk is generated when the association_max

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAFXGft+XZCmhuwj2QTCiU0MD10Uo+WZ3WCC+rfbsd_Lxbhk3iw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:27:10 +0800
From:	Sun Paul <paulrbk@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc:	Michael Tuexen <tuexen@...muenster.de>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question on SCTP ABORT chunk is generated when the
 association_max_retrans is reached

Hi

sorry for the late reply. I am a bit confused. when side-A sends a
request to side-B, and side-B return the response, but side-A keep
re-transmit the same request to side-B, why side-B needed to send a
ABORT to side-A?

If it is used in order to reestablish the connection, shoudn't it
should be side-A to send ABORT instead?

- PS

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 07:36 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Yepp. It might not reach the peer or it might. If it does it helps
>> to keep the states in sync. If it doesn't it sometimes helps in
>> analysing tracefiles. In BSD, we also send it. It is not required,
>> doesn't harm and is useful in some cases...
>
>
> Ok, as the TCB is destroyed in any case, should be fine then.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
--
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