netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] af_unix: Don't peek OOB data without 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, 16 Apr 2024 21:37:46 -0700
From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        kuni1840@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] af_unix: Don't peek OOB data without MSG_OOB.



On 4/16/24 15:10, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:01:15 -0700
>> On 4/16/24 14:47, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>>> From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:34:20 -0700
>>>> On 4/16/24 13:51, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>>>>> From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:11:09 -0700
>>>>>> The proposed fix is not the correct fix as among other things it does
>>>>>> not allow going pass the OOB if data is present. TCP allows that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ugh, exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the behaviour was broken initially, so the tag is
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support")
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where is this requirement listed?
>>>
>>> Please start with these docs.
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PswtQoZm7r5MGnH8pv3OewI_PvmSRJb29YcA0pnVOzuu8T3xvWlw4lLlLzFhzn6uO2lo0bUA5Yikc2A$
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PswtQoZm7r5MGnH8pv3OewI_PvmSRJb29YcA0pnVOzuu8T3xvWlw4lLlLzFhzn6uO2lo0bUAdoz3l7w$
>>>
>>>
>> That is a suggestion. I see commits in even af_unix.c which do not
>> follow that convention. They just mention what the fix is about. In this
>> case it is implied.
>>
>> I am not opposed specifying it but it seems it's optional.
> 
> You want to read the 2nd doc.
> 
>    1.1 tl;dr
>    for fixes the Fixes: tag is required, regardless of the tree

Thanks will do.

Shoaib