From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Sun Dec 10 20:35:06 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93D8E9B0D4 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:35:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7F021FB2 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:35:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id vBAKZ64O001480 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:35:06 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 224218] Kernel panic in SCTP/IpV6 server mode Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:35:06 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.1-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: hshreesh@yahoo.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:35:06 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D224218 --- Comment #14 from Shreesh Holla --- (In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #12) @conrad - I see what you mean since i386 =3D> 32 bit. And yes definitely fi= xing the SCTP stack to not use that much stack is the right one. From what I saw= it was right away and likely it uses a lot of stack for each stream and maybe = each association. Dont know the implementation - but difficult to break that nee= d. But as @Eugene said there is no requirement to keep it less than 4.=20 My opinion is that the default is changed to 3 or 4. And systems that are l= ower end can configure for lower numbers knowing that things like IpV6+SCTP will= not work. Assuming they dont need to use SCTP. This way the OS is generally usa= ble in such a specific situation? I mean I think this is a security situation s= ince it seems real easy to bring down a machine with this issue currently. Seems like a more critical issue than that ICMPV6 issue of a while back. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=