netdev - Wiring up direct socket calls on x86

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]

Date:	Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:14:38 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>,
	Cosimo Cecchi <cosimo@...lessm.com>,
	Dan Nicholson <nicholson@...lessm.com>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>
Subject: Wiring up direct socket calls on x86_32 Linux?

Hi all-

sys_socketcall sucks.  If nothing else, it's impossible to filter with
seccomp.  Should we wire up the real socket calls so that user code
can (very slowly) start migrating?

I think the list is:
 - socket
 - bind
 - connect
 - listen
 - accept4
 - getsockname
 - getpeername
 - socketpair
 - send
 - sendto
 - sendmsg
 - recv
 - recvfrom
 - recvmsg
 - shutdown
 - setsockopt

I skipped accept, which is superseded by accept4.  sendmmsg and
recvmmsg are already wired up.

Thoughts?  The patch would be trivial.

Glibc people: If Linux wired up the syscalls, would glibc use them?

--Andy

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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