[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1447841988.834928.443071345.1AAFF2A9@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:19:48 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
edumazet@...gle.com, ek@...gle.com, maze@...gle.com,
dtor@...gle.com
Subject: Re: Add a SOCK_DESTROY operation to close sockets from userspace
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015, at 05:04, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-11-17 at 19:27 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> > I understand why you might want this, but it smells like the same
> > kind of problems that the "forced unmount" patch had which eventually
> > led to it not being accepted in mainline. Lots of corner
> > cases and race conditions waiting to blow up.
>
> Well, disconnecting a TCP socket seems straightforward, once you get a
> sk pointer.
>
> Code looks good.
>
> >
> > Look at the issues that the multi-thread socket close has.
> > This looks worse.
>
> I do not see a problem here. A RST packet has roughly same effect, and
> we do process them.
>
> Cookies are 64bits and uniquely identify a socket.
>
> Once you make sure the request comes from a privileged user, we are
> good.
>
> This user could easily install some iptables rules to generate RST
> packets anyway.
I bet there will soon be a timewaitd which handles the not configurable
(David has rejected all those patches so far) timeout of TIME_WAIT
sockets. And I bet it will be used. :/
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