On 08/24/2015 06:07 AM, Xin Long wrote:
> currently, we sctp_walk_params(), if we encounter the address parameter, we
> will
> skip them, we do not care about how many addr params are there.
>
> but the params of ASCONF chunk should consist of one *Address Parameter* and
> one
> or more *ASCONF Parameters*.
>
> so we will process multiple address parameters as unrecognized parameter and
> send error cause to peer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien....@gmail.com>
> ---
> net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c
> index 06320c8..0ee5ca7 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c
> @@ -3217,10 +3217,18 @@ struct sctp_chunk *sctp_process_asconf(struct
> sctp_association *asoc,
>
> /* Process the TLVs contained within the ASCONF chunk. */
> sctp_walk_params(param, addip, addip_hdr.params) {
> - /* Skip preceeding address parameters. */
> + /* Skip preceeding address parameters.
> + * process multi-addrparam as unrecognized parameters
> + */
> if (param.p->type == SCTP_PARAM_IPV4_ADDRESS ||
> - param.p->type == SCTP_PARAM_IPV6_ADDRESS)
> + param.p->type == SCTP_PARAM_IPV6_ADDRESS) {
> + if(param.addr != addr_param) {
> + all_param_pass = false;
> + sctp_add_asconf_response(asconf_ack, 0,
> + SCTP_ERROR_UNKNOWN_PARAM, param.v);
> + }
> continue;
> + }
>
I think it would be much better to catch this in the validation stage.
If an implementation inserts multiple address parameters, we don't really know
which one we should be using.
-vlad
> err_code = sctp_process_asconf_param(asoc, asconf,
> param.addip);
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
