netdev - Re: strange tcp behavior

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 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:	Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:49:10 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	simon@...e.lp0.eu, john@...een.lv, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: strange tcp behavior

On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:04:51PM -0700, David Miller (davem@...emloft.net) wrote:
> From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:22:42 +0400
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 07:21:34PM -0700, David Miller (davem@...emloft.net) wrote:
> > > What in the world are we doing allowing stream sockets to autobind?
> > > That is totally bogus.  Even if we autobind, that won't make a connect
> > > happen.
> > 
> > For accepted socket it is perfectly valid assumption - we could autobind 
> > it during the first send. Or may bind it during accept. Its a matter of
> > taste I think. Autobinding during first sending can end up being a 
> > protection against DoS in some obscure rare case...
> 
> accept()ed socket is by definition fully bound and already in
> established state.

That what I meant - it binds during accept (well it can not be called
real binding), but could be autobound during first send to needed port.
Maybe that was one of intentions, don't know.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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