netdev - Re: What is lock_sock() before skb_free

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]

Message-Id: <200904240656.JIC90182.HQOtLVJOFOMFFS@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:56:52 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	sam@...ack.fr
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What is lock_sock() before skb_free_datagram() for?

Samir Bellabes wrote:
> what is the purpose of having such hooks ?
Same as security_socket_post_accept() (i.e. to drop datagrams from unwanted
peers).

I need to understand the meaning of "poll()" returning "ready" to understand
why security_socket_accept() and security_socket_recvmsg() are permitted to
return an error (though these hooks don't remove from the queue).

My understanding is that "poll()" returning "ready" does not guarantee that
accept()/recvmsg() shall return a valid file descriptor/datagram;
"poll()" returning "ready" guarantees merely accept()/recvmsg() does not
need to wait for connection/datagram. (Otherwise, security_socket_accept()
and security_socket_recvmsg() have to be gone.)
--
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