netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] network: return errors if we know tcp

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: <20101112.112836.183042210.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:28:36 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Cc:	eparis@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] network: return errors if we know tcp_connect
 failed

From: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:46:20 +0300

> The only loophole is ICMP error in the same case as yours. In
> _violation_ of specs linux immediately aborts unestablished connect
> on an icmp error. IMHO that thing which you suggest is correct (of
> course, provided you filter out transient errors and react only to
> EPERM or something like this). It was not done because it was
> expected firewall rule prescribing immediate abort is configured
> with "--reject-with icmp-port-unreachable", otherwise the rule
> orders real blackhole.

The idea to signal on -EPERM might be OK, but if that's also
what things like "-m statistical" and friends end up reporting
then we still cannot do it.
--
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