netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: remove unused cmd SCTP_CMD_GEN_INIT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190515141219.GA23839@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 10:12:58 -0400
From:   Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        "hange-folder>?" <toggle-mailboxes@...alhost.localdomain>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: remove unused cmd SCTP_CMD_GEN_INIT_ACK

On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 01:52:48PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:27 PM Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:39:13AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> > > Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 07:32:35 -0400
> > >
> > > > This is definately a valid cleanup, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to,
> > > > instead of removing it, to use it.  We have 2 locations where we actually call
> > > > sctp_make_init_ack, and then have to check the return code and abort the
> > > > operation if we get a NULL return.  Would it be a better solution (in the sense
> > > > of keeping our control flow in line with how the rest of the state machine is
> > > > supposed to work), if we didn't just add a SCTP_CMD_GEN_INIT_ACK sideeffect to
> > > > the state machine queue in the locations where we otherwise would call
> > > > sctp_make_init_ack/sctp_add_cmd_sf(...SCTP_CMD_REPLY)?
> I think they didn't do that, as the new INIT_ACK needs to add unk_param from
> the err_chunk which is allocated and freed in those two places
> sctp_sf_do_5_1B_init()/sctp_sf_do_unexpected_init().
> 
> It looks not good to pass that err_chunk as a param to the state machine.
> 
Hmm, perhaps you're right, this does look like the more clean way to do
this, even if its outside the state machine ordering

Neil

> > >
> > > Also, net-next is closed 8-)
> > >
> > Details, details :)
> >
> So everytime before posting a patch on net-next,
> I should check http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html first, right?
>