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: <8e15d185cabc9294958b13f5cff389aa@dev.tdt.de>
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 07:35:23 +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 <linux-x25@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: x25: Fix handling of Restart Request and
 Restart Confirmation

On 2020-12-09 21:16, Xie He wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:31 AM Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de> 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.
> 
> OK..
> 
> Currently it's not clear to me what your future patches would be.
> Maybe we can first have this patch applied? Because based on the
> current code I think this patch is necessary. When you are ready to
> submit your patches, you can replace my code and we can discuss
> further.

Yes, that's also the reason why I already acked this patch. We can
solve this later a little bit cleaner if necessary.

My patch that takes care of the orphaned packets in x25_receive_data()
has again a dependency on other patches, especially the patch to
configure the neighbor parameters (DCE/DTE, number of channels etc.),
which I already sent before but still have to revise.

Unfortunately I have only limited time for this topic, so I am not as
fast as some people would wish. Sorry for that.

Martin