netdev - Re: [BUG] UDP : bind() checks are not complete

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: <20070605.130219.35356925.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dada1@...mosbay.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] UDP : bind() checks are not complete

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:15:36 +0200

> I discovered one big problem with UDP binding in 2.6.22-rc4 :

Thanks for finding this problem, the crux of the issue is
INADDR_ANY.

> We really should check no socket is bound to XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:32769. With current hashing, 
> it means checking all slots in udptable[] :(
> 
> Our choices are :
> 
> 1) Drop all thoses patches and re-think them for 2.6.23 eventually
> 2) Add the extra check for ANY_ADDR sockets and perform a full scan
> 
> What do you think ?

Does checking for INADDR_ANY sockets really require a full scan?
It should just need two hash probes as far as I can tell to see
if there is "0.0.0.0:PORT" bound already.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html