netdev - Re: [Bug 42012] New: regression on 2.6.39.3 with socket/bind; still there in 3.0.4

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, 30 Aug 2011 21:16:43 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 42012] New: regression on 2.6.39.3 with socket/bind;
 still there in 3.0.4

Le mardi 30 août 2011 à 14:07 -0400, David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:11:48 +0200
> 
> > Yep, we should relax the check and accept AF_UNSPEC.
> 
> I guess we'll have to do this, but I just can't bring myself to accept
> that we can just do zero validation of what the user is passing us,
> see an AF_UNSPEC, and say "yeah it's fine to assume there's an ipv4
> address in there."

I couldnt accept it either ;)

By the way, if we accept it, strace() will probably still print binary
blob instead of the IP address (not necessarily ANY address ?)

connect ( AF_UNSPEC ) has special semantic, but AFAIK, bind (AF_UNSPEC)
only brings some mixed results : FreeBSD was accepting it in old
versions it seems. I guess I should try current FreeBSD versions.



--
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