netdev - Re: UDP sockets oddities

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]

Message-ID: <1503718844.11498.19.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2017 20:40:44 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, willemb@...gle.com,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: UDP sockets oddities

On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 20:25 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:

> It would. Since the call trace involves udp_send_skb() how come we are
> not returning an error to write(2)? are there other code paths where the
> neighbor code can do drops like these?

Are you suggesting write(2) should block until ARP resolution is
done ? :)

What about non blocking writes ?

Honestly UDP is not a protocol for which we must absolutely be sure
packets are sent or not.