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]

Date:	Sun, 1 Nov 2015 16:59:23 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for
 sockets in accept(3)

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> This ought to be a bit cleaner.  Eric, could you test the variant below on your
> setup?

I'd love to see the numbers, but at the same time I really can't say I
love your patch.

I've merged my own two patches for now (not actually pushed out - I
don't want to distract people from just testing 4.3 for a while),
because I felt that those had a unreasonably high bang-for-the-buck
(ie big speedups for something that still keeps the code very simple).

I'm definitely open to improving this further, even go as far as your
patch, but just looking at your version of __alloc_fd(), I just don't
get the warm and fuzzies.

                  Linus
--
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