linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] net: handle error more gracefully in socketpair()

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:	Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:48:05 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	ydroneaud@...eya.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: handle error more gracefully in socketpair()

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 07:43:55PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>
> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:15:31 +0100
> 
> > AFAIK, using sys_close() seems to be the exception, and writing the file
> > descriptor before installing it is the more or less the norm.
> 
> What other system call in the kernel writes a file descriptor's value
> into the address space of a user process before the file descriptor
> is actually usable?
> 
> That's really terrible semantically.

What's the problem with that?  If nothing else, shared descriptor table is
a lot more visible to other threads than two-element array, most likely
in stack frame of whoever makes that syscall...

As for your question, how about pipe(2)?
--
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/