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:	Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:44:18 +0000
From:	David Holland <dholland-tech@...bsd.org>
To:	Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
Cc:	David Holland <dholland-tech@...bsd.org>, Casper.Dik@...cle.com,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
 for sockets in accept(3)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:15:33PM +0000, Alan Burlison wrote:
 > >close(2) as specified by POSIX doesn't prohibit this weird revoke-like
 > >behavior, but there's nothing in there that mandates it either. (I
 > >thought this discussion had already clarified that.)
 > 
 > There was an attempt to interpret POSIX that way, with which I still
 > disagree. If a FD is closed or reassigned then any current pending
 > operations on it should be terminated.

C&V, please.

 > >Note that while NetBSD apparently supports this behavior because
 > >someone copied it from Solaris, I'm about to go recommend it be
 > >removed.
 > 
 > Which behaviour? The abort accept() on close() behaviour?

That, and aborting anything else too. Close isn't revoke.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland@...bsd.org
--
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