linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys

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]

Message-ID: <20080424152436.6cf53c1b@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:24:36 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1

> I don't think this is a viable approach because it is not about the
> range.  People can and do select arbitrary values for those types.
> Until a value is officially recognized and registered it is in fact best
> to choose a (possibly large) random value to not conflict with anything
> else.  Who can guarantee that whatever bit is chosen for SOCK_CLOEXEC
> isn't already used by someone?

There are only a small number of valid socket types recognized by POSIX
plus a few BSD plus a few Linux ones so Linux can happily assign the
upper bits for a different purpose.

> Add to this that it's not a complete solution (no such hack possible for
> accept) and I think using a new interface is cleaner(tm).

Every other property of a socket via accept() is inherited from the
parent. Making one property different would be bizarre and ugly.

Alan
--
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/