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: <20160825121046.GA11159@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:10:46 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc:     Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, davem <davem@...emloft.net>,
        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

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:03:30PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > Or add a refcnt to its members. </idea>
> > NETDEV_UP, it gets a ++ if it's already there
> > NETDEV_DOWN, it gets a -- and cleans it up if it reaches 0
> > And the rest probably could stay the same.
> >
> Yes, it could also avoid the issue of amounts of duplicate addrs.
> or add a nic index variable to  its members.
> 
> But I still prefer the current patch.
> 1. This issue only happens when server bind 'ANY' addresses.
>     we don't need to add any new members to struct sctp_sockaddr_entry.
>     especially if it's a really corner issue,  we fix this as an improvement.
> 
> 2. It's yet two issues  here, the duplicate addrs may be from
>    a) different local NICs.
>    b) the same one NIC.
>    It may be unexpectable to filter them in NETDEV_UP/DOWN events.
> 
> 3. We check it only when sctp really binds it, just like sctp_do_bind.
> 
> What do you think ?

Yep, +1. LGTM the current patch, thanks.