netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/5] c/r: Add AF

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: <878wi6yxui.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:49:57 -0700
From:	Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>
To:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...rato.com>
Cc:	containers@...ts.osdl.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] c/r: Add AF_UNIX support (v6)

OL> Hmm.. then what happens when you have a circular dependency ?  For
OL> example, three dgram sockets, A, B and C where: A->B, B->C and
OL> C->A ('->' means connected).

So, I've been cooking up changes to the patch and a test for this
case.  However, it seems like it's not valid, unless I'm missing
something.  The man page for connect() says:

  If the socket sockfd is of type SOCK_DGRAM then serv_addr is the
  address to which datagrams are sent by default, and the only address
  from which datagrams are received.

So, even though you can connect() a DGRAM socket and then sendto()
datagrams to a different location, it doesn't appear that the
relationship between A and B is really valid, at least the connection
between A and B is not functional.  In fact, in my testing, if you try
to connect() C back to A, you get "Operation not permitted" because A
is already connected elsewhere.

Thoughts?

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: danms@...ibm.com
--
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