netdev - Re: [PATCH net] sctp: partial chunk should be drop without sending abort packet

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: <55DB60CB.8030002@iogearbox.net>
Date:	Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:22:03 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
	Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
CC:	network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: partial chunk should be drop without sending
 abort packet

On 08/24/2015 02:47 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:08:30PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
>> as RFC 4960, 6.10 said, *if the receiver detects a partial chunk, it MUST drop
>> the chunk*, we should not send the abort. but if we put this discard to inside
>> state machine, it will send abort.
>>
>> so we just drop the partial chunk there, never let this chunk go into the state
>> machine.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
>> ---
>
> This is basically reverting a chunk of Daniel's and Vlad's 26b87c788100
> ("net: sctp: fix remote memory pressure from excessive queueing") .
> Isn't it going to re-introduce the initial issue then?

Yes, seems so.
--
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