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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 15:56:30 +0100 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>, Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com> Subject: Re: Add a SOCK_DESTROY operation to close sockets from userspace On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 15:45, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa > <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote: > > I was not saying using tcp_close literally, sorry for not making that > > clear, but just model the state transitions after tcp_close. At least it > > seems like a normal close to me. > > But it shouldn't be a normal close. Consider calling SOCK_DESTROY on a > socket that is streaming data to a peer. If SOCK_DESTROY results in > the kernel sending a FIN, the remote side might think that the sender > closed the connection gracefully, even though the local side aborted > the connection. Oh, yes, I understand. The connection wasn't closed by the application but by the administrator forcefully. So we should never indicate a successful TCP shutdown with FIN but with RST. A TIME_WAIT period actuallty still seems useful to me, maybe with different semantics, only RST incoming data? Bye, Hannes -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists