Re: Fragmented ordered user messages with inconsistent stream sequence numbers are accepted and deli

[Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:57 AM, Julian Cordes <julian.cordes@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-01-17 19:49 GMT+01:00 Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Julian Cordes <julian.cordes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> When fragmented ordered user messages are sent to the linux kernel user
>>> messages with inconsistent stream sequence numbers are accepted and
>>> delivered to the application. Take for example an look at the following test case:
>>> https://github.com/nplab/PR_SCTP_Testsuite/blob/master/forward-tsn/error-cases/packet-loss/ordered/ordered-packet-loss-2.pkt
>>>
>>> Here I first inject two DATA-Chunks with sid/ssn 1/1, 2/1 into the
>>> kernel with packetdrill:
>>> line 67: +0.0 < sctp: DATA[flgs=E, len\x1016, tsn=2, sid=1, ssn=1,
>>> ppid=0]
>>> line 69: +0.1 < sctp: DATA[flgs=E, len\x1016, tsn=4, sid=2, ssn=1,
>>> ppid=0]
>>>
>>> After 0.1 seconds i then inject an FORWARD-TSN with cum_tsn=2 bundled
>>> with an DATA-Chunk that looks like this:
>>> DATA[flgs=B, len\x1016, tsn=3, sid=2, ssn=0, ppid=0]
>>>
>>> This "looks" like the first segment of the user message where already a
>>> fragment (tsn=4) was received. But the ssn-values are  not consistent.
>>> The DATA-Chunk with tsn=3 has ssn=0 and the ssn=1 therefore they should
>>> be ignored by the IUT and not be delivered to the userland application when
>>> calling sctp_recvmsg. Unfortunatly the linux kernel implementation does
>>> currently deliver these inconsistent user messages.
>> sorry, I may misunderstand you.
>>
>> after FORWARD-TSN, "DATA[flgs=E, len\x1016, tsn=2, sid=1, ssn=1"
>> should be received, then only "sctp: DATA[flgs=E, len\x1016, tsn=4,
>> sid=2, ssn=1" is in the queue, then "DATA[flgs=B, len\x1016, tsn=3,
>> sid=2, ssn=0, ppid=0]" is processed, these two chunks (tsn=3 and
>> tsn=4) should be recvmsg, as their sid are the same and ssn are
>> consistent (ssn=0 and ssn=1).
>> and your sctp_recvmsg is after above, so it should be right.
>>
>> did I miss something?
>>
>>
> Shouldnt the ssn be 0 for both DATA-Chunks with sid=2, because they
> consistent to the same first fragmented user message of stream with
> sid=2?
ahh, got you now, will look into it tomorrow,  thanks.

>>>
>>> There are many test-cases that all reproduce this
>>> issue. Just take a look at the README at
>>> https://github.com/nplab/PR_SCTP_Testsuite/tree/master/forward-tsn/error-cases/packet-loss/ordered.