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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists