linux-kernel - Re: RFC: changed error code when binding unix socket twice

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: <20181107155644.GA29531@dell5510>
Date:   Wed, 7 Nov 2018 16:56:44 +0100
From:   Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
To:     gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     mkubecek@...e.cz, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ltp@...ts.linux.it, Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@...e.cz>,
        junchi.chen@...el.com, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: RFC: changed error code when binding unix socket twice

Hi

> I forgot that 4.1 has ended a while ago. Greg also sometimes still takes patches
> for 3.18, so that might be a candidate aside from 3.18

Gregkh, David, does it make sense to you to merge commit 0fb44559ffd6 ("af_unix:
move unix_mknod() out of bindlock") to 3.18? If yes, please do so.


> > I guess we need to adjust LTP test to accept either return code as EOL longterm
> > branches probably will not take this patch.

> I'd argue that if we decide that EADDRINUSE is the intended return value,
> it would be appropriate for LTP to warn about kernels that never got the
> backport.

> The alternative would be to not backport the patch further, and then change LTP
> to no longer warn. Note that the bug that got fixed by the 0fb44559ffd6 patch
> is probably more important than the return code, so I would say
> we want the patch backported to anything that people still run anyway,
> especially if they are running LTP to make sure it works correctly.

>         Arnd

Kind regards,
Petr