netdev - Re: Question regarding expected behavior of two udp sockets with SO

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: <1290267887.2756.75.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:44:47 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: Question regarding expected behavior of two udp sockets with
 SO_REUSEADDR set

Le samedi 20 novembre 2010 à 10:04 -0500, Neil Horman a écrit :

> Agreed.  My thought was to add logic to udp_lib_lport_inuse such that, if
> sk_reuse is set on both sockets, and the input snum is 0 (indicating autobind)
> we should not allow binding sk to inet_sk(sk2)->num.  Thoughts?

I dont know, problem is this could be possible right now if sk2 is bound
on 127.0.0.2 address. Adding this test would reduce possible space.

Autobind is tricky, it chooses a port while address is part of the
problem.

Some loopback scalability problems could be solved if full range of
127.0.0.0/8 addresses were used, avoiding the dst refcount false
sharing :)



--
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