From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
To: Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: lksctp-developers@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCTP: Fix possible memory leak while process INIT chunk with AUTH paramters
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:03:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47E8F838.1010906@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47E31A76.6060903@cn.fujitsu.com>
Wei Yongjun wrote:
> Hi Vlad:
>
> Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> Hi Wei
>>
>> Wei Yongjun wrote:
>>> While endpoint received INIT/INIT-ACK chunk with AUTH parameters,
>>> such as RANDOM, HMAC_ALGO, CHUNKS parameter, if those parameters
>>> appear more then once, memory for store those parameters will be
>>> malloc more then once and not free.
>>>
>>
>> All these parameters must be included only once in the packet.
>
> RFC 4890 has the following text:
>
> The RANDOM parameter MUST be included once in the INIT or INIT-ACK
> chunk, if the sender wants to send or receive authenticated chunks,
> to provide a 32-byte Random Number. For 32-byte Random Numbers, the
> Padding is empty.
>
>
> It said *MUST be included once*, not *only once*, is this right?
I guess it depends on the interpretation. If they are allowed more then
once, then which parameter should be used. The spec leaves that undefined.
Undefined behavior on a security extension is usually treated as an exploit.
That's my take on this.
>
>>
>> If these things are included more then once, we should either ABORT or
>> completely ignore the packet. I haven't decided which one makes more
>> sense yet.
>>
>> If someone when to the trouble of violating the protocol, we should not
>> establish the association with them.
>
> I think do ABORT with protocol violation is better, do the same thing as
> the other protocol violation case do.
Yes.
-vlad
>
> Wei Yongjun
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-25 13:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-20 7:09 [PATCH] SCTP: Fix possible memory leak while process INIT chunk with AUTH paramters Wei Yongjun
2008-03-20 12:24 ` Vlad Yasevich
2008-03-21 2:16 ` Wei Yongjun
2008-03-25 13:03 ` Vlad Yasevich [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=47E8F838.1010906@hp.com \
--to=vladislav.yasevich@hp.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=lksctp-developers@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yjwei@cn.fujitsu.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).