netdev - Re: Reported regression against commit a05d2ad

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: <4E01015A.2030709@canonical.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:38:50 -0600
From:	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>
To:	Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, lamont@...onical.com,
	sconklin@...onical.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Reported regression against commit a05d2ad

On 06/21/2011 02:15 PM, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after update to one of the latest 2.6.32.x stable kernels for Ubuntu, we
> got a regression report about timeout in tcp connections
> (https://launchpad.net/bugs/791512).
>
> We tried help reporter with a bisect process, but it was taking some
> time, so we reverted some suspect commits, until we isolated it to
> commit "af_unix: Only allow recv on connected seqpacket sockets."
>
> With only commit a05d2ad reverted, testing results so far indicate the
> issue doesn't happen.
>
> I'm unfamiliar with unix sockets code, so can't see at first why this
> commit in particular is causing problems, for now I can only say may be
> something at application level using unix sockets regressed with it (?).
> I'm just reporting it right now, and we plan to revert it for that kernel
> until more info is found about it.
>
> I'm adding reporter to CC (Lamont), in case more details are necessary
> etc.
>

I believe we're also homing in on the same regression in 2.6.38.6 
('af_unix: Only allow recv on connected seqpacket sockets.'). The 
functional part of the patch is:

+
+       if (sk->sk_state != TCP_ESTABLISHED)
+               return -ENOTCONN;
+
+       return unix_dgram_recvmsg(iocb, sock, msg, size, flags);

What happens with out of order receives? Would fragmentation have an impact?

rtg
-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@...onical.com
--
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