netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] sctp: not copying duplicate addrs to the assoc's bind address list

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: <CADvbK_fo8o1nOvo58PdrkkT6ffGv7r5NhDUazBw67mwwfcwitA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Aug 2016 23:16:41 +0800
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        davem <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>, daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] sctp: not copying duplicate addrs to the assoc's
 bind address list

> Under what valid use case will multiple interfaces have the same network
> address?
>
Hi, Neil.
I'm not sure the specific valid use case.

The point is, do we trust the sctp global addr list has no duplicate
address ? In one of users' computer, he found hundreds of duplicate
addresses in INIT_ACK packets.
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308362)

If we think NETDEV_UP/DOWN event in addrs chain always come
in pairs, I can not explain how come this issue happened.

But from sctp end, we can avoid it with this patch. after all
binding any duplicate addresses is illegal, just like what
sctp_bind does.

what do you think ?