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]

Date:	Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:22:36 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] UDP : bind() checks are not complete

David Miller a écrit :
> 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.

Well, I feel guilty as I was initial patch submiter :(

> 
>> 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.

Well, we might have 1000 ip addresses on the machine (or not :) ), and

192.168.0.1:PORT ... 192.168.0.254:PORT already bound.

-
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