netdev - Re: Fw: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3)

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: <1445347173.22974.6.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Oct 2015 06:19:33 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fw: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is
 incorrect for sockets in accept(3)

On Tue, 2015-10-20 at 10:59 +0100, Alan Burlison wrote:

> That may be how Linux implements accept(), but I don't see anything 
> about refcounting in the POSIX spec for accept().

That's an internal implementation detail. POSIX does not document linux
kernel overall design and specific tricks.

linux is GPL, while Solaris is proprietary code. There is quite a
difference, and we do not want to copy Solaris behavior. We want our own
way, practical, and good enough.

If POSIX makes sense we try to be compliant. If not, we do not.

If you are interested, take a look at fs/* code, and try to implement
your proposal and keep good performance.

You might find a clever way, without infringing prior art. We did not
yet.

--
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