netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] rxrpc: Don't permit use of connect() op and simplify sendmsg() op

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4962.1460690770@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2016 04:26:10 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rxrpc: Don't permit use of connect() op and simplify sendmsg() op

David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> > Simplify the RxRPC user interface and remove the use of connect() to direct
> > client calls.  It is redundant given that sendmsg() can be given the target
> > address and calls to multiple targets are permitted from a client socket
> > and also from a service socket.
> 
> You can't just change completely the socket semantics for your
> protocol like this, every single userland application is going to
> break.
> 
> Sorry, there is no way I am applying changes like this.

Okay, fair enough.[*]

David

[*] I could point out that there is only one (under construction) userspace
application that uses this - and that doesn't use connect - but I can't quite
be 100% sure of that, so your point stands.