linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 2/3] selftests/bpf: Add socketpair to create

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: <20250227222141.mnvpmnvafisd2pjk@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:21:41 -0800
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@...ux.dev>, cong.wang@...edance.com,
	jakub@...udflare.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org,
	andrii@...nel.org, eddyz87@...il.com, mykolal@...com,
	ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
	song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev, kpsingh@...nel.org,
	sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
	shuah@...nel.org, mhal@...x.co, sgarzare@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	mrpre@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 2/3] selftests/bpf: Add socketpair to
 create_pair to support unix socket

On 2025-02-27 11:52:04, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 09:22:41PM +0800, Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> > Current wrapper function create_pair() is used to create a pair of
> > connected links and returns two fds, but it does not support unix sockets.
> > 
> > Here we introduce socketpair() into create_pair(), which supports creating
> > a pair of unix sockets, since the semantics of the two are the same.
> 
> Since it is only for UDS and only has effectively 1 line of code, how
> about just calling socketpair(AF_UNIX) in your patch 3/3?

If we run that test with more than AF_UNIX it might be best as is. I
think there might be some value testing that flow on TCP/UDP even if
its not related to the bug.

Thanks,
John