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: <1445949849.7476.10.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 05:44:09 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
Cc:	Casper.Dik@...cle.com, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, 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)

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 12:27 +0000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> On 27/10/2015 12:01, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > Are non multi threaded applications considered well written ?
> >
> > listener = socket(...);
> > bind(listener, ...);
> > listen(fd, 10000);
> > Loop 1 10
> >    if (fork() == 0)
> >      do_accept(listener)
> >
> > Now if a child does a close(listener), or is killed, you propose that it
> > does an implicit shutdown() and all other children no longer can
> > accept() ?
> 
> No, of course not. I made it quite clear I was talking about MT programs.

Nothing is clear. Sorry.

Now shat about programs using both fork() model and MT, to get one MT
process per NUMA node ?






--
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