netdev - Re: [PATCH] datagram: Extend the datagram queue MSG

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, 21 Feb 2012 00:01:01 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	xemul@...allels.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, tj@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] datagram: Extend the datagram queue MSG_PEEK-ing

From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:17:11 +0400

> I was thinking about another option of doing the same, how about introducing
> the peek offset member on sock (get/set via sockopt) which works like
> 
> * if == -1, then peek works as before
> * if >= 0, then each peek/recvmsg will increase/decrease the value so that
>   the next peek peeks next data
> 
> It's questionable what to do if the peek_off points into the middle of a
> datagram however. Here's an example of how this looks for datagram sockets
> (tested on pf_unix), for stream this requires more patching.
> 
> What do you think? Does it make sense to go on with this making other 
> ->recvmsg handlers support peeking offset?

I think you need to add some kind of locking to this for sanity, for
example right now you're doing test/decide/store decisions over
sk_peek_off inside of __skb_recv_datagram() without the socket lock,
yet another thread can set the SO_PEEK_OFF in parallel.

The locking decision will probably be worse for stream sockets.
--
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