netdev - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Add post recvmsg() hook.

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]

Date:	Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp
Cc:	kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net, paul.moore@...com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Add post recvmsg() hook.

From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:22:51 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:46:55 +0900
> 
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> > Then, why does below proposal lose information?
>>> 
>>> Peek changes state, now it's possible that two processes end up
>>> receiving the packet.
>> 
>> Indeed. We will need to protect sock->ops->recvmsg() call using a lock like
> 
> But this doesn't matter.

Also, btw, we're not adding a lock to a code path which we've worked
so hard to make largely lockless.  This lock is going to kill
performance.
--
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