netdev - Re: [PATCH] socket: Merge getsockname and getpeername into a single function

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:30:19 +0100
From:	Kenan Kalajdzic <kenan@...x.ba>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] socket: Merge getsockname and getpeername into a single 
	function

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:24 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> Since you still have to conditionalize things like the security
> calls, this doesn't look any cleaner to me than what we have
> there already.

You are absolutely right about this - the condition around security
calls ruins the whole refactoring attempt.  It could easily go away if
we were ready to make minor changes to the security code.  It is
because getting the local socket info and getting the peer socket info
are essentially the same type of operation.  Therefore, both
security_socket_getsockname() and security_socket_getpeername()
eventually evaluate to a call to socket_has_perm() with
SOCKET__GETATTR.  The question remains whether it is worth breaking
the cleanness of the security hooks code to get rid of the condition
in 'our' two functions?

-- 
Kenan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html