On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 08:00:25PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > > + if (err) > > + return err; > > + > > + lock_sock(sk); > > + err = sctp_do_bind(sk, (union sctp_addr *)addr, af->sockaddr_len); > > + if (!err) > > + err = sctp_send_asconf_add_ip(sk, addr, 1); > > Some problems here. > - addr may contain a list of addresses > - the addresses, then, are not being validated > - sctp_do_bind may fail, on which it requires some undoing > (like sctp_bindx_add does) > - code duplication with sctp_setsockopt_bindx. sctp_do_bind and thus this function only support a single address, as that is the only thing that the DLM code requires. I could move the user copy out of sctp_setsockopt_bindx and reuse that, but it is a rather rcane API. > > This patch will conflict with David's one, > [PATCH net-next] sctp: Pull the user copies out of the individual sockopt functions. Do you have a link? A quick google search just finds your mail that I'm replying to. > (I'll finish reviewing it in the sequence) > > AFAICT, this patch could reuse/build on his work in there. The goal is > pretty much the same and would avoid the issues above. > > This patch could, then, point the new bind_add proto op to the updated > sctp_setsockopt_bindx almost directly. > > Question then is: dlm never removes an addr from the bind list. Do we > want to add ops for both? Or one that handles both operations? > Anyhow, having the add operation but not the del seems very weird to > me. We generally only add operations for things that we actually use. bind_del is another logical op, but we can trivially add that when we need it.
