linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try #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:	Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:36:57 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert.xu@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	arjan@...radead.org, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] AF_RXRPC socket family implementation [try
 #3]

Ok quickly going over the code that hasn't made the list

- recvmsg not supporting MSG_TRUNC is rather weird and really ought to be
fixed one day as its useful to find out the sizeof message pending when
combined with MSG_PEEK

- RXRPC_MIN_SECURITY_LEVEL reads into rx->min_sec_level and then if it is
invalid reports an error but doesn't restore the valid level

- Why does rxrpc_writable always return 0 ?

- rxrpc_process_soft_ACKs doesn't itself limit and check acns->nAcks is
always below RXRPC_MAXACKS, as this is a stakc variable it ought to be
paranoid about it. I think its ok from the caller check but its very hard
to prove...


It needs a lot more eyes/review due to the complexity and network
exposure though - not your fault, whoever designed RXRPC's 8)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/