netdev - Re: [PATCHv3 net-next 1/5] sctp: add SCTP_ADDR_POTENTIALLY

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_fi78Sof4n4KcgdQgPDJ-QZtP9O9W2zpFryRqm3FLeW3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:58:42 +0800
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net-next 1/5] sctp: add SCTP_ADDR_POTENTIALLY_FAILED notification

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:22 AM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 04:55:01PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > > > @@ -801,14 +801,6 @@ void sctp_assoc_control_transport(struct sctp_association *asoc,
> > > >                       spc_state = SCTP_ADDR_CONFIRMED;
> > > >               else
> > > >                       spc_state = SCTP_ADDR_AVAILABLE;
> > > > -             /* Don't inform ULP about transition from PF to
> > > > -              * active state and set cwnd to 1 MTU, see SCTP
> > > > -              * Quick failover draft section 5.1, point 5
> > > > -              */
> > > > -             if (transport->state == SCTP_PF) {
> > > > -                     ulp_notify = false;
> > > > -                     transport->cwnd = asoc->pathmtu;
> > > > -             }
> > >
> > > This is wrong.
> > > If the old state is PF and the application hasn't exposed PF the event should be
> > > ignored.
> > yeps, in Patch 2/5:
> > +               if (transport->state == SCTP_PF &&
> > +                   asoc->pf_expose != SCTP_PF_EXPOSE_ENABLE)
> > +                       ulp_notify = false;
> > +               else if (transport->state == SCTP_UNCONFIRMED &&
> > +                        error == SCTP_HEARTBEAT_SUCCESS)
> >                         spc_state = SCTP_ADDR_CONFIRMED;
> >                 else
> >                         spc_state = SCTP_ADDR_AVAILABLE;
>
> Right, yet for one bisecting the kernel, a checkout on this patch will
> see this change regardless of patch 2. Patches 1 and 2 could be
> swapped to avoid this situation.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >               transport->state = SCTP_ACTIVE;
> > > >               break;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -817,19 +809,18 @@ void sctp_assoc_control_transport(struct sctp_association *asoc,
> > > >                * to inactive state.  Also, release the cached route since
> > > >                * there may be a better route next time.
> > > >                */
> > > > -             if (transport->state != SCTP_UNCONFIRMED)
> > > > +             if (transport->state != SCTP_UNCONFIRMED) {
> > > >                       transport->state = SCTP_INACTIVE;
> > > > -             else {
> > > > +                     spc_state = SCTP_ADDR_UNREACHABLE;
> > > > +             } else {
> > > >                       sctp_transport_dst_release(transport);
> > > >                       ulp_notify = false;
> > > >               }
> > > > -
> > > > -             spc_state = SCTP_ADDR_UNREACHABLE;
> > > >               break;
> > > >
> > > >       case SCTP_TRANSPORT_PF:
> > > >               transport->state = SCTP_PF;
> > > > -             ulp_notify = false;
> > >
> > > Again the event should be supressed if PF isn't exposed.
> > it will be suppressed after Patch 2/5:
> > +               if (asoc->pf_expose != SCTP_PF_EXPOSE_ENABLE)
> > +                       ulp_notify = false;
> > +               else
> > +                       spc_state = SCTP_ADDR_POTENTIALLY_FAILED;
> >                 break;
>
> Same here.
okay, will swap them. thanks.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > +             spc_state = SCTP_ADDR_POTENTIALLY_FAILED;
> > > >               break;
> > > >
> > > >       default:
> > > > --
> > > > 2.1.0
> > >
> > > I also haven't spotted where the test that the application has actually enabled
> > > state transition events is in the code.
> > all events will be created, but dropped in sctp_ulpq_tail_event() when trying
> > to deliver up:
> >
> >         /* Check if the user wishes to receive this event.  */
> >         if (!sctp_ulpevent_is_enabled(event, ulpq->asoc->subscribe))
> >                 goto out_free;
> >
> > > I'd have thought it would be anything is built and allocated.
> > >
> > >         David
> > >
> > > -
> > > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> > > Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> > >
> >