In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions Some MPTCP suboptions are mutually exclusive according to the RFC8684, but also because in different places, the code doesn't expect some combinations to be present. That's specially true for suboptions that would be present twice, but with different attributes. The new restrictions are the same as the ones applied on the output side, with mptcp_write_options. The same rules can be reused with a small fix: an MP_FASTCLOSE can be used with a DSS when the sender picks this option [1], which is not the case on Linux. Here are the rules: Which options can be used together? X: mutually exclusive O: often used together C: can be used together in some cases P: could be used together but we prefer not to (optimisations) | Opt: | MPC | MPJ | DSS | ADD | RM | PRIO | FAIL | FC | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | MPC |------|------|------|...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions Some MPTCP suboptions are mutually exclusive according to the RFC8684, but also because in different places, the code doesn't expect some combinations to be present. That's specially true for suboptions that would be present twice, but with different attributes. The new restrictions are the same as the ones applied on the output side, with mptcp_write_options. The same rules can be reused with a small fix: an MP_FASTCLOSE can be used with a DSS when the sender picks this option [1], which is not the case on Linux. Here are the rules: Which options can be used together? X: mutually exclusive O: often used together C: can be used together in some cases P: could be used together but we prefer not to (optimisations) | Opt: | MPC | MPJ | DSS | ADD | RM | PRIO | FAIL | FC | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | MPC |------|------|------|...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions Some MPTCP suboptions are mutually exclusive according to the RFC8684, but also because in different places, the code doesn't expect some combinations to be present. That's specially true for suboptions that would be present twice, but with different attributes. The new restrictions are the same as the ones applied on the output side, with mptcp_write_options. The same rules can be reused with a small fix: an MP_FASTCLOSE can be used with a DSS when the sender picks this option [1], which is not the case on Linux. Here are the rules: Which options can be used together? X: mutually exclusive O: often used together C: can be used together in some cases P: could be used together but we prefer not to (optimisations) | Opt: | MPC | MPJ | DSS | ADD | RM | PRIO | FAIL | FC | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | MPC |--

mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: m ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: avoid combining some incoming suboptions Some MPTCP suboptions are mutually exclusive according to the RFC8684, but also because in different places, the code doesn't expect some combinations to be present. That's specially true for suboptions that would be present twice, but with different attributes. The new restrictions are the same as the ones applied on the output side, with mptcp_write_options. The same rules can be reused with a small fix: an MP_FASTCLOSE can be used with a DSS when the sender picks this option [1], which is not the case on Linux. Here are the rules: Which options can be used together? X: mutually exclusive O: often used together C: can be used together in some cases P: could be used together but we prefer not to (optimisations) | Opt: | MPC | MPJ | DSS | ADD | RM | PRIO | FAIL | FC | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | MPC ...