netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 32832] New: shutdown(2) does not fully shut down socket any more

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: <20110413.104317.71110417.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dbaluta@...acom.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, kees@...flux.net
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 32832] New: shutdown(2) does not fully shut
 down socket any more

From: Daniel Baluta <dbaluta@...acom.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:57:18 +0300

> Cyril's use case looks suspect. I don't think that this is a good
> reason for reverting this commit.

I complete disagree.

Something that worked perfectly fine, probably for years, we broke.

We simply cannot do that, especially since we do not have a reasonable
alternative at this time.

Adding SO_REUSEPORT is a long range option, and not something that
will provide a fix for users right now.

So please don't even pretend to suggest that we shouldn't fix this
with a revert unless a simple, obvious, kernel fix presents itself.
--
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