netdev - Re: Add a SOCK_DESTROY operation to close sockets from userspace

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 2015 00:53:18 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	lorenzo@...gle.com
Cc:	hannes@...essinduktion.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, 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

From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:13:48 +0900

> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:49 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> The more I think about it more the more I agree with him and dislike
>> having user space make sure "it's ok", that isn't where TCP protocol
>> semantic rules are implemented.  It belongs in the kernel.
> 
> Today any app can always, on one of its sockets, set SO_LINGER with a
> timeout of 0 and call tcp_close. That results in immediately sending a
> RST and forgetting about local state. (Those semantics are the ones of
> RFC 793 ABORT.) If SOCK_DESTROY did that instead of just calling
> tcp_done, would that be acceptable?

What I object to is userspace making reachability decisions, not
whether SOCK_DESTROY closes the socket in one way or the other.
--
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