netdev - Re: [PATCH] netlink: add NETLINK_BROADCAST_REPORT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:06:30 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netlink: add NETLINK_BROADCAST_REPORT_ERROR socket option

Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>>  static inline struct netlink_sock *nlk_sk(struct sock *sk)
>>>  {
>>> @@ -994,13 +995,15 @@ static inline int do_one_broadcast(struct sock 
>>> *sk,
>>>      if (p->skb2 == NULL) {
>>>          netlink_overrun(sk);
>>>          /* Clone failed. Notify ALL listeners. */
>>> -        p->failure = 1;
>>> +        if (nlk->flags & NETLINK_BROADCAST_SEND_REPORT_ERROR)
>>> +            p->failure = 1;
>>
>> This doesn't make sense. *Other* sockets get skipped only iff
>> this socket had the error-report flag set? This should be done
>> in a consistent manner, which means either not set the failure
>> flag at all and retry for all sockets, or set it for any failed
>> socket delivery and determine the return value based on whether
>> one of the skipped sockets had the error-report flag set.
> 
> I can add a check for the flag to allow sockets without the flag set to 
> try to send the message:
> 
>         if ((nlk->flags & NETLINK_BROADCAST_SEND_ERROR) && p->failure) {
>                 netlink_overrun(sk);
>                 goto out;
>         }
> 
> Still, this "skip" behaviour looks to me strange. I don't see why a 
> socket should skip if other socket's clone failed. Wouldn't it be better 
> to remove this?

Yes, that was the first of my suggestions. I don't care much which
way its done, but it should provide a consistent behaviour, which
means skipping should not depend on the setting of a *different*
socket.

--
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