netdev - Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:35:31 +0100
From:	Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Casper.Dik@...cle.com
CC:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, stephen@...workplumber.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, dholland-tech@...bsd.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
 for sockets in accept(3)

On 23/10/2015 14:02, Eric Dumazet wrote:

>> Other data is used to make sure that it only takes O(log(n)) to find the
>> lowest available file descriptor entry.  (Where n, I think, is the returned
>> descriptor)
>
> Yet another POSIX deficiency.
>
> When a server deals with 10,000,000+ socks, we absolutely do not care of
> this requirement.
>
> O(log(n)) is still crazy if it involves O(log(n)) cache misses.

If you think it's a POSIX deficiency then logging a DR is probably the 
correct way of addressing that. And as I've said it's fine to decide 
that you don't care about what POSIX says on the subject but you can't 
simultaneously claim POSIX conformance. One or the other, not both.

-- 
Alan Burlison
--
--
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