[SCTP]: Follow Add-IP security consideratiosn wrt INIT/INIT-ACK
The Security Considerations section of RFC 5061 has the following
text:
If an SCTP endpoint that supports this extension receives an INIT
that indicates that the peer supports the ASCONF extension but does
NOT support the [RFC4895] extension, the receiver of such an INIT
MUST send an ABORT in response. Note that an implementation is
allowed to silently discard such an INIT as an option as well, but
under NO circumstance is an implementation allowed to proceed with
the association setup by sending an INIT-ACK in response.
An implementation that receives an INIT-ACK that indicates that the
peer does not support the [RFC4895] extension MUST NOT send the
COOKIE-ECHO to establish the association. Instead, the
implementation MUST discard the INIT-ACK and report to the upper-
layer user that an association cannot be established destroying the
Transmission Control Block (TCB).
Follow the recomendations.
Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c b/net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c
index 0c9f37e..511d8c9 100644
--- a/net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c
+++ b/net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c
@@ -507,7 +507,9 @@
&err_chunk)) {
/* This chunk contains fatal error. It is to be discarded.
- * Send an ABORT, with causes if there is any.
+ * Send an ABORT, with causes. If there are no causes,
+ * then there wasn't enough memory. Just terminate
+ * the association.
*/
if (err_chunk) {
packet = sctp_abort_pkt_new(ep, asoc, arg,
@@ -526,9 +528,6 @@
} else {
error = SCTP_ERROR_NO_RESOURCE;
}
- } else {
- sctp_sf_tabort_8_4_8(ep, asoc, type, arg, commands);
- error = SCTP_ERROR_INV_PARAM;
}
/* SCTP-AUTH, Section 6.3: