netdev - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Add security_socket_post_accept() and security_socket_post_recv

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: <20090421.212342.235921625.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	greg@...kko.com
Cc:	penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, paul.moore@...com,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Add security_socket_post_accept() and
 security_socket_post_recv_datagram().

From: Greg Lindahl <greg@...kko.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:52:28 -0700

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 06:14:11PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> 
>> We had a similar situation with read()'s on UDP sockets.
>> 
>> When poll() says something, it has to stick.
> 
> Isn't that completely different? Anyone who writes code that calls
> accept() quickly finds out that in the real world it fails for all
> kinds of reasons worth ignoring. As an example, a comment in ircd at
> the only accept call (circa 1998):

I said explicitly that hard errors are allows (out of file
descriptors, memory allocation failure)

Feel free to ignore what I'm saying, and I'll feel free to
ignore you too.
--
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