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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090422064159.GA4221@bx9.net>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:41:59 -0700
From:	Greg Lindahl <greg@...kko.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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().

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:34:03PM -0700, David Miller wrote:

> People use poll() to avoid -EAGAIN and blocking, they expect the bits
> to tell them what fd's they can work on to do real work.

My point is that EAGAIN happens already. So you can't claim that
returning it in accept() breaks the interface, when it's common enough
that today's user-level network code already handles it.

I have no opinion about TOMOYO. There are many reasons other than
EAGAIN from accept() to complain about.

-- greg

--
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