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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2017 21:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:     f.fainelli@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        willemb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: UDP sockets oddities

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 20:40:44 -0700

> 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.

Agreed, but the ARP resolution queue really needs to scale it's backlog
to the physical technology it is attached to.