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: <20080424160352.30f2dd5b@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:03:52 +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

> You didn't read what I wrote.

The feeling is mutual

> For those the implementer must ensure that during the development no
> value is used which can conflict with any current and future assigned
> value and not with any other development.

Kernel socket type values are assigned by the kernel team so that
isn't a problem.

> > Every other property of a socket via accept() is inherited from the
> > parent. Making one property different would be bizarre and ugly.
> 
> Implementing this would visibly change existing code and it would
> actively violate POSIX.  Not a good idea.

POSIX has no interface for this new behaviour you propose so that is
complete crap. The moment you use one of these features you stepped
outside of the POSIX spec - and you know that. If there was an existing
standard we wouldn't have a problem.

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/