linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] reintroduce accept4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:41:35 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] reintroduce accept4

(cc linux-api)

(cc linux-arch)

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:41:50 -0400 Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com> wrote:

> This patch reintroduces accept4, replacing paccept.  It's easy to see that
> the patch only removes code and then redirects existing code away from the
> removed functions.  Since the paccept code sans signal handling was never
> in question I think there is no reason to quarantine the patch first.

I'll confess to not having a clue what's going on here.

What is accept4() and why do I want one?  Sigh.  Hopefully others have
been following more closely and have some context.

> I've updated the test program which now looks as follows:

> 
> #include <fcntl.h>
> #include <pthread.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <netinet/in.h>
> #include <sys/socket.h>
> #include <sys/syscall.h>
> 
> #ifdef __x86_64__
> #define __NR_accept4 288
> #define SOCK_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC
> #elif __i386__
> #define SYS_ACCEPT4     18
> #define USE_SOCKETCALL 1
> #define SOCK_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC
> #else

Well.  This doesn't actually agree with the kernel patch.

>
> ...
>
>  arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_64.h |    4 -
>  include/linux/net.h              |    6 --
>  include/linux/syscalls.h         |    3 -
>  kernel/sys_ni.c                  |    2 
>  net/compat.c                     |   50 ++----------------------
>  net/socket.c                     |   80 ++++-----------------------------------

I'd suggest that i386 is sufficiently common to warrant its inclusion
in the initial patch.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/