netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Fix security_socket

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:	Tue, 02 Aug 2011 04:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp
Cc:	eparis@...isplace.org, anton@...ba.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
	mjt@....msk.ru, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Fix security_socket_sendmsg() bypass problem.

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:28:40 +0900

> I think this behavior is not preferable.  In this case, should
> security_socket_sendmsg() return -EAGAIN rather than -EPERM?  Or,
> should sendmmsg() not record errors after some of datagrams were
> sent?

I think you must return -EAGAIN so that the user can see how many
of the datagrams were sent successfully.

In fact, it is a requirement.  What if the sent datagrams have
side effects (f.e. money moves from one bank account to another)?

How else can the application find this out?
--
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