From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Moahn Reddy <mohanreddykv@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] ipvs: off by one in set_sctp_state()
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:19:24 +0530
Message-ID: <517507A4.7070406@gmail.com>
References: <20130420112455.GA30198@elgon.mountain> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1304201504510.1593@ja.ssi.bg> <20130422041151.GM15680@verge.net.au> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1304220843560.1626@ja.ssi.bg> <51750016.5080600@gmail.com> <20130422093016.GB8936@mwanda>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc
         :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=ap8DOTZF91V9bC362y1bMkVySP09Qfsn56pkTpQUsSQ=;
        b=PuTRjWRe3SMe+av0lYzyxAOk/GfpMbFSzHjjsLKILREtROp5cdPfC9rLzyYEvUnhBi
         VyFvnL9n8Zx7+FnjBWvVDSlULICPV1Aotw/SDV6dRVQZyrnuRYascrQd6VuCxFWu+728
         tiYzsD5qpsXUjnC7U3T6fAIfVG0WbvnM3eF4hFlyB1+yG3YlRChBE3hi/poDLPvgozPy
         L8w4zAMjrtQVcTVV2DdwOAMZz4t6TeCUTF54nH3zQfuOqAH15qpAtNmrn5SBPVdOni6g
         Q7q90KH8CZ9gSQRjDmFzJ7H1sW3Qyu5WBI8OgOh19Z6G2CUEjPSpFMYUHTpu/0OfXlq6
         ffpg==
In-Reply-To: <20130422093016.GB8936@mwanda>
Sender: lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <lvs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>, Wensong Zhang <wensong@linux-vs.org>, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org

Hi Dan,

I am not saying that that is not a problem. Yes, we need to fix that 
array issue. I just said that I thought 0 to 254 enough at that time.

Thanks,
Mohan

On Monday 22 April 2013 03:00 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 02:47:10PM +0530, Moahn Reddy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see there is no problem in the code regarding the state change.
>> And the thing why I took 255 in the sctp_events array is that as per
>> the sctp specification, the 255 message is reserved, so I thought 0
>> to 254 messages are enough.
> The issue is can chunk_type in set_sctp_state() be 255?  How is
> this prevented in the code?
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>