netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] sctp: add spp_ipv6_flowlabel and spp_dscp for sctp

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: <20180625163157.GA542@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:31:59 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     吉藤英明 <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Cc:     Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, lucien.xin@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] sctp: add spp_ipv6_flowlabel and spp_dscp
 for sctp_paddrparams

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 01:12:00AM +0900, 吉藤英明 wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 2018-06-25 22:03 GMT+09:00 Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 07:28:47AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 04:31:26PM +0900, David Miller wrote:
> >> > From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> >> > Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:14:35 +0800
> >> >
> >> > >  struct sctp_paddrparams {
> >> > > @@ -773,6 +775,8 @@ struct sctp_paddrparams {
> >> > >   __u32                   spp_pathmtu;
> >> > >   __u32                   spp_sackdelay;
> >> > >   __u32                   spp_flags;
> >> > > + __u32                   spp_ipv6_flowlabel;
> >> > > + __u8                    spp_dscp;
> >> > >  } __attribute__((packed, aligned(4)));
> >> >
> >> > I don't think you can change the size of this structure like this.
> >> >
> >> > This check in sctp_setsockopt_peer_addr_params():
> >> >
> >> >     if (optlen != sizeof(struct sctp_paddrparams))
> >> >             return -EINVAL;
> >> >
> >> > is going to trigger in old kernels when executing programs
> >> > built against the new struct definition.
> >
> > That will happen, yes, but do we really care about being future-proof
> > here? I mean: if we also update such check(s) to support dealing with
> > smaller-than-supported structs, newer kernels will be able to run
> > programs built against the old struct, and the new one; while building
> > using newer headers and running on older kernel may fool the
> > application in other ways too (like enabling support for something
> > that is available on newer kernel and that is not present in the older
> > one).
> 
> We should not break existing apps.
> We still accept apps of pre-2.4 era without sin6_scope_id
> (e.g., net/ipv6/af_inet6.c:inet6_bind()).

Yes. That's what I tried to say. That is supporting an old app built
with old kernel headers and running on a newer kernel, and not the
other way around (an app built with fresh headers and running on an
old kernel).

> 
> >
> >> >
> >> I think thats also the reason its a packed aligned attribute, it can't be
> >> changed, or older kernels won't be able to fill it out properly.
> >> Neil
> >
> > It's more for supporting running 32-bits apps on 64-bit kernels
> > (according to 20c9c825b12fc).
> >
> >   Marcelo