netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: x25: Fix handling of Restart Request and Restart Confirmation

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: <dde53213f7e297690e054d01d815957f@dev.tdt.de>
Date:   Wed, 09 Dec 2020 11:31:54 +0100
From:   Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
To:     Xie He <xie.he.0141@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-x25@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: x25: Fix handling of Restart Request and
 Restart Confirmation

On 2020-12-09 10:52, Martin Schiller wrote:
> On 2020-12-09 09:16, Xie He wrote:
>> 1. When the x25 module gets loaded, layer 2 may already be running and
>> connected. In this case, although we are in X25_LINK_STATE_0, we still
>> need to handle the Restart Request received, rather than ignore it.
> 
> Hmm... I've never loaded the X.25 module after the interface is UP, but
> in this case we really have to fix it.
> 

This seems to be a regression caused by moving the Layer2 link handling
into the lapb driver, which wasn't intended in my original patchset.

I also have another patch on my todo list which aims orphan packet
handling in the x25_receive_data() function. Maybe it is better to catch
the whole thing there.

>> 
>> 2. When we are in X25_LINK_STATE_2, we have already sent a Restart 
>> Request
>> and is waiting for the Restart Confirmation with t20timer. t20timer 
>> will
>> restart itself repeatedly forever so it will always be there, as long 
>> as we
>> are in State 2. So we don't need to check x25_t20timer_pending again.
> 
> Yeah, you're right, we can actually leave that out.
> 
> Acked-by: Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>