From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Yongjun Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 01:49:20 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [SCTP]: Add address type check while process paramaters Message-Id: <482A4520.6010103@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Id: References: <48298E27.40100@hp.com> <20080513.153238.211668684.davem@davemloft.net> <482A38B5.5030908@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080513.181415.228379595.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20080513.181415.228379595.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Miller Cc: vladislav.yasevich@hp.com, kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, lksctp-developers@lists.sourceforge.net David Miller wrote: > From: Wei Yongjun > Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 08:56:21 +0800 > > >> Hi David: >> >> Sorry for my mistake. This patch is create and tested by me. >> >> I tested it used a test tool which is created by me. And this patchset >> resolved the kernel panic problem. It seems that I need to do more >> review my patch and >> add more test case to my tool. I will pay more attention to do the >> correct patchs. >> > > It dereferences an uninitialized pointer, unconditionally. Therefore, > the patch was definitely completely untested. This function never ran > during your tests. > > Please, no more excuses. > > You didn't test the patch. > The end. > Are you sure you are right? First I am sorry for stupid patch, second I said again, I do test it, but do not enough test. uninitialized pointer is not NULL pointer, so it not kernel panic when use "addr_param->v4.param_hdr.type", this patch cause function alaways return SCTP_ERROR_INV_PARAM error, so even if I add IPv6 address to peer which not supported IPv6 address or add IPv4 address to peer which not supported IPv4 address is returned SCTP_ERROR_INV_PARAM, and passed my test case. I not do test add IPv4/IPv6 address to peer which supported IPv4/IPv6 address, this is my fault . From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Yongjun Subject: Re: [PATCH] [SCTP]: Add address type check while process paramaters of ASCONF chunk Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 09:49:20 +0800 Message-ID: <482A4520.6010103@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <48298E27.40100@hp.com> <20080513.153238.211668684.davem@davemloft.net> <482A38B5.5030908@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080513.181415.228379595.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: vladislav.yasevich@hp.com, kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, lksctp-developers@lists.sourceforge.net To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:51295 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752173AbYENBtF (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 21:49:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080513.181415.228379595.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Wei Yongjun > Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 08:56:21 +0800 > > >> Hi David: >> >> Sorry for my mistake. This patch is create and tested by me. >> >> I tested it used a test tool which is created by me. And this patchset >> resolved the kernel panic problem. It seems that I need to do more >> review my patch and >> add more test case to my tool. I will pay more attention to do the >> correct patchs. >> > > It dereferences an uninitialized pointer, unconditionally. Therefore, > the patch was definitely completely untested. This function never ran > during your tests. > > Please, no more excuses. > > You didn't test the patch. > The end. > Are you sure you are right? First I am sorry for stupid patch, second I said again, I do test it, but do not enough test. uninitialized pointer is not NULL pointer, so it not kernel panic when use "addr_param->v4.param_hdr.type", this patch cause function alaways return SCTP_ERROR_INV_PARAM error, so even if I add IPv6 address to peer which not supported IPv6 address or add IPv4 address to peer which not supported IPv4 address is returned SCTP_ERROR_INV_PARAM, and passed my test case. I not do test add IPv4/IPv6 address to peer which supported IPv4/IPv6 address, this is my fault .