netdev - [PATCH 0/2] unix: Introduce /proc/net/unix

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4ED7BC37.2030805@parallels.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:41:11 +0400
From:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
To:	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] unix: Introduce /proc/net/unix_peers file

Hi.

There's a common problem with unix sockets -- there's no way to determine
which tasks are connected to each other with a unix socket. Although the
/proc/<pid>/fd/<n> symlink shows a socket inode number, the peers do not
share an inode and thus these numbers give no answer.

There have been an attempt last year to print the peer=<number> for unbound
sockets in the existing /proc/net/unix file, but it was left unfinished and
had problems with bound sockets - for those the peer inode was still unknown
and the name didn't help at all.

I'd like to have this ability (determining the unix connection endpoints)
implemented and propose to introduce a /proc/net/unix_peers file with socket
inode number pairs. For not connected sockets 0 is printed.

Are there strong objections against this approach?

Patches apply to net-next tree.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.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