netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] UNIX sockets: POSIX conformance of errno's

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:	Thu, 03 Mar 2016 12:11:23 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ed@...i.nl
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] UNIX sockets: POSIX conformance of errno's

From: Ed Schouten <ed@...i.nl>
Date: Thu,  3 Mar 2016 12:23:36 +0100

> Hi there,
> 
> While comparing the behavior of the Berkeley sockets API different
> operating systems, I noticed that in some places we return different
> errno's as what POSIX requires and how other systems work, but also what
> we document in our own man pages.
> 
> This is the first time I'm sending a patch to the Linux kernel, so if
> there's anything wrong with the way I submitted these patches, just let
> me know.

I see very little to no value, if not harm, in doing this.

We've returned errors this way for two decades, and if there is code
out there checking the existing error codes it will break.

I really dislike blind POSIX/BSD/etc. "compliance" patches like this
because it completely ignores the decades of precedence our current
behavior has, upon which application might depend upon.

I'm not applying this series, sorry.