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  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]
Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:15:21 +0200
To:	Alan Burlison <>
cc:	David Miller <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3) 

>It's been said that the current mechanisms in Linux & some BSD variants 
>can be subject to races, and the behaviour exhibited doesn't conform to 
>POSIX, for example requiring the use of shutdown() on unconnected 
>sockets because close() doesn't kick off other threads accept()ing on 
>the same fd. I'd be interested to hear if there's a better and more 
>performant way of handling the situation that doesn't involve doing the 
>sort of bookkeeping Casper described,.

Of course, the implementation is now around 18 years old; clearly a lot of 
things have changed since then.

In the particular case of Linux close() on a socket, surely it must be 
possible to detect at close that it is a listening socket and that you are 
about to close the last reference; the kernel could then do the shutdown() 
all by itself.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists