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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:33:31 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, stephen@...workplumber.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	dhowells@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
 for sockets in accept(3)

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 02:44:28PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> Well, all this complexity goes away with a O_FD_FASTALLOC /
> SOCK_FD_FASTALLOC bit in various fd allocations, which specifically
> tells the kernel we do not care getting the lowest possible fd as POSIX
> mandates.

... which won't do a damn thing for existing userland.

> Except for legacy stuff and stdin/stdout/stderr games, I really doubt
> lot of applications absolutely rely on the POSIX thing...

We obviously can't turn that into default behaviour, though.  BTW, what
distribution do you have in mind for those random descriptors?  Uniform
on [0,INT_MAX] is a bad idea for obvious reasons - you'll blow the
memory footprint pretty soon...
--
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