From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: lucien.xin@gmail.com
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org,
davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
pabeni@redhat.com, marcelo.leitner@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] sctp: add INIT verification after cookie unpacking
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2026 11:40:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260617104013.852168-1-horms@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13a54c38586e0e1c7d46dfc16c3f6e1a7685001b.1781570014.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com>
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
Full review at: https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/
---
Now I have enough verified information to produce the report.
commit 9d74027bfd0cb22a103cca034883f0fcb4e2535a
Author: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
sctp: add INIT verification after cookie unpacking
This commit adds sctp_verify_init() checks after cookie unpacking in
the COOKIE-ECHO processing paths when cookie_auth_enable is disabled.
It also changes the bounds comparison inside sctp_verify_init() from
chunk->chunk_end to peer_init + ntohs(peer_init->chunk_hdr.length).
> diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c
> index 41958b8e59fd..21b9eb1c02e9 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/sm_make_chunk.c
> @@ -2298,7 +2298,7 @@ int sctp_verify_init(struct net *net, const struct sctp_endpoint *ep,
> * VIOLATION error. We build the ERROR chunk here and let the normal
> * error handling code build and send the packet.
> */
> - if (param.v != (void *)chunk->chunk_end)
> + if (param.v != (void *)peer_init + ntohs(peer_init->chunk_hdr.length))
> return sctp_process_inv_paramlength(asoc, param.p, chunk, errp);
[High]
Can this new comparison reject INIT chunks whose final parameter has a
length that is not a multiple of 4?
sctp_walk_params() advances pos.v by SCTP_PAD4(ntohs(pos.p->length)) on
every iteration:
include/net/sctp/sctp.h:
#define _sctp_walk_params(pos, chunk, end)\
for (pos.v = (u8 *)(chunk + 1);\
...
pos.v += SCTP_PAD4(ntohs(pos.p->length)))
so when the final parameter has an unpadded length L that is not 4-byte
aligned, pos.v ends at peer_init + offset_of_last_param + SCTP_PAD4(L),
which exceeds peer_init + ntohs(peer_init->chunk_hdr.length) by 1..3.
The previous comparison used chunk->chunk_end, which inqueue.c computes
with the padding included:
net/sctp/inqueue.c:
chunk->chunk_end = ((__u8 *)ch) + SCTP_PAD4(ntohs(ch->length));
so the old check accepted unaligned-length final parameters; the new
check returns 0 from sctp_verify_init(), and the callers then invoke
sctp_abort_on_init_err() and emit an ABORT.
Note that this change is in sctp_verify_init() itself, so it affects
every caller, not just the new COOKIE-ECHO sites: sctp_sf_do_5_1B_init,
sctp_sf_do_5_1C_ack, sctp_sf_do_unexpected_init, sctp_sf_do_5_1D_ce
and sctp_sf_do_5_2_4_dupcook all reach this comparison.
Realistic triggers include:
- Locally-generated INITs constructed by sctp_make_init() when both
auth_enable and asconf_enable are set: with the default chunk IDs
ASCONF + ASCONF_ACK the AUTH-CHUNKS parameter has length 6 and is
typically the last parameter, leaving chunk_hdr.length unaligned.
- Peer INITs containing any final parameter with non-4-aligned
length, e.g. SCTP_PARAM_SUPPORTED_ADDRESS_TYPES with 1 or 3 types
last, AUTH-CHUNKS with N=1,2,3 entries last, or any unknown TLV.
Even in the COOKIE-ECHO context the new bound seems too strict, since
sctp_pack_cookie() copies the INIT verbatim with memcpy(cookie + 1,
init_chunk->chunk_hdr, ntohs(...->length)) followed immediately by
raw_addrs, so unpacked cookies recovered from peers that sent an INIT
with an unaligned-length final parameter would also be spuriously
rejected.
Would comparing against peer_init + SCTP_PAD4(ntohs(peer_init->
chunk_hdr.length)) preserve the long-standing semantics of chunk_end
while still validating the cookie-derived peer_init bounds?
> diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c b/net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c
[ ... ]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-17 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-16 0:33 [PATCH net 0/2] sctp: validate INIT in COOKIE-ECHO when auth disabled Xin Long
2026-06-16 0:33 ` [PATCH net 1/2] sctp: factor out INIT verification failure handling Xin Long
2026-06-17 10:39 ` Simon Horman
2026-06-16 0:33 ` [PATCH net 2/2] sctp: add INIT verification after cookie unpacking Xin Long
2026-06-17 10:40 ` Simon Horman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260617104013.852168-1-horms@kernel.org \
--to=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
--cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox