netdev - Re: [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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201510220651.t9M6pKs1018174@room101.nl.oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:51:20 +0200
From:	Casper.Dik@...cle.com
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
cc:	Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	dholland-tech@...bsd.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3) 


From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>

>Except that in this case "correctness" is the matter of rather obscure and
>ill-documented areas in POSIX.  Don't get me wrong - this semantics isn't
>inherently bad, but it's nowhere near being an absolute requirement.

It would more fruitful to have such a discussion in one of the OpenGroup 
mailing lists; people gathered there have a lot of experience and it is 
also possible to fix the standard when it turns out that it indeed as 
vague as you claim it is (I don't quite agree with that)

Casper

--
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