Re: [PATCH net v3 1/2] sctp: distinguish sequence zero from wildcard in reconf lookup

On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 5:14 AM Jun Yang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zero is a valid response sequence after strreset_outseq wraps, but
> sctp_chunk_lookup_strreset_param() currently treats it as a wildcard.
>
> Add match_seq so response lookups match zero exactly while the one
> type-only lookup can still ignore the sequence.
>
> Fixes: 50a41591f110 ("sctp: implement receiver-side procedures for the Add Outgoing Streams Request Parameter")
> Cc: [email protected]
> Suggested-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jun Yang <[email protected]>
> ---
>  net/sctp/stream.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/stream.c b/net/sctp/stream.c
> index 34ffe6c..cfca5aa 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/stream.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/stream.c
> @@ -482,7 +482,7 @@ out:
>
>  static struct sctp_paramhdr *sctp_chunk_lookup_strreset_param(
>                         struct sctp_association *asoc, __be32 resp_seq,
> -                       __be16 type)
> +                       __be16 type, bool match_seq)
>  {
>         struct sctp_chunk *chunk = asoc->strreset_chunk;
>         struct sctp_reconf_chunk *hdr;
> @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@ static struct sctp_paramhdr *sctp_chunk_lookup_strreset_param(
>                  */
>                 struct sctp_strreset_tsnreq *req = param.v;
>
> -               if ((!resp_seq || req->request_seq == resp_seq) &&
> +               if ((!match_seq || req->request_seq == resp_seq) &&
>                     (!type || type == req->param_hdr.type))
>                         return param.v;
>         }
> @@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ struct sctp_chunk *sctp_process_strreset_outreq(
>         if (asoc->strreset_chunk) {
>                 if (!sctp_chunk_lookup_strreset_param(
>                                 asoc, outreq->response_seq,
> -                               SCTP_PARAM_RESET_IN_REQUEST)) {
> +                               SCTP_PARAM_RESET_IN_REQUEST, true)) {
>                         /* same process with outstanding isn't 0 */
>                         result = SCTP_STRRESET_ERR_IN_PROGRESS;
>                         goto out;
> @@ -816,7 +816,7 @@ struct sctp_chunk *sctp_process_strreset_addstrm_out(
>
>         if (asoc->strreset_chunk) {
>                 if (!sctp_chunk_lookup_strreset_param(
> -                       asoc, 0, SCTP_PARAM_RESET_ADD_IN_STREAMS)) {
> +                       asoc, 0, SCTP_PARAM_RESET_ADD_IN_STREAMS, false)) {
>                         /* same process with outstanding isn't 0 */
>                         result = SCTP_STRRESET_ERR_IN_PROGRESS;
>                         goto out;
> @@ -927,7 +927,8 @@ struct sctp_chunk *sctp_process_strreset_resp(
>         struct sctp_paramhdr *req;
>         __u32 result;
>
> -       req = sctp_chunk_lookup_strreset_param(asoc, resp->response_seq, 0);
> +       req = sctp_chunk_lookup_strreset_param(asoc, resp->response_seq, 0,
> +                                              true);
>         if (!req)
>                 return NULL;
>
> --
> 2.55.0
>

Acked-by: Xin Long <[email protected]>

The issue reported by Sashiko [1] is mainly a changelog improvement.
It’s not a big deal to me.

[1] https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260821091440.6496-1-junvyyang%40tencent.com