On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 03:46:31PM -0000, David Laight wrote:
> > From: Neil Horman
> > Currently, sctp associations latch a sockets autoclose value to an association
> > at association init time, subject to capping constraints from the max_autoclose
> > sysctl value. This leads to an odd situation where an application may set a
> > socket level autoclose timeout, but sliently sctp will limit the autoclose
> > timeout to something less than that.
> >
> > Fix this by modifying the autoclose setsockopt function to check the limit, cap
> > it and warn the user via syslog that the timeout is capped. This will allow
> > getsockopt to return valid autoclose timeout values that reflect what subsequent
> > associations actually use.
> ...
> > + if (sp->autoclose > net->sctp.max_autoclose) {
> > + pr_warn("Capping autoclose value %d to defined maximum of %lu\n",
> > + sp->autoclose, net->sctp.max_autoclose);
> > + sp->autoclose = net->sctp.max_autoclose;
> > + }
>
> Is it really reasonable to allow a user to spam syslog this way?
>
> David
>
>
Actually, I think its ok, or at least common. Theres lots of pr_messages
checking common user errors in the various setockopt paths. We should probably
undertake a larger effort to convert those all to printk_ratelimited with some
level of sctp shared state.
Neil
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
