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: <20151029.185449.456371093991888866.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	Alan.Burlison@...cle.com
Cc:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
 for sockets in accept(3)

From: Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:12:44 +0000

> On 29/10/2015 17:07, Al Viro wrote:
> 
>> Could the esteemed sir possibly be ars^H^H^Hprevailed upon to quote
>> the exact
>> place in POSIX that requires such behaviour?
> 
> If that's the way the conversation is going to go, sorry, no.

I find Al's request to be frankly quite reasonable, as is his
frustration expressed in his tone as well.

Furthermore, NetBSD's intention to try and get rid of the
close() on accept() behavior shows that the Linux developers
are not in the minority of being against requiring this
behavior or even finding it desirable in any way.
--
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