netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Security: Document disablenetwork. (v4)

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: <200912271039.DHG51586.FMFFHOJSLVQtOO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:	Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:39:28 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	michael@...top.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Security: Document disablenetwork. (v4)

Tetsuo Handa wrote
> sendmsg(fd, (struct sockadr *) &addr, sizeof(addr));
I meant
sendto(fd, buffer, len, 0, (struct sockadr *) &addr, sizeof(addr));

Michael Stone wrote:
> +Exceptions are made for
> +  * processes calling sendmsg() on a previously connected socket
> +      (i.e. one with msg.msg_name == NULL && msg.msg_namelen == 0) or

What should we do for non connection oriented protocols (e.g. UDP)
but destination is already configured by previous connect() request?

struct sockaddr_in addr = { ... };
int fd2 = socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
connect(fd2, (struct sockadr *) &addr, sizeof(addr));
prctl( ... );
sendto(fd2, buffer, len, 0, NULL, 0); /* Should we allow this? */
sendto(fd2, buffer, len, 0, (struct sockadr *) &addr, sizeof(addr)); /* Should we reject this? */
--
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