netdev - Re: [RFC] apparently bogus logics in unix_find

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]

Message-ID: <20190211031949.GA15980@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:19:49 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] apparently bogus logics in unix_find_other() since 2002

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:24:15AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> Looks like that should be impossible; what am I missing here?  Incidentally,
> how can the quoted fragment in in unix_stream_connect() be reached with NULL
> otheru->addr?  After all, otheru is unix_sock of a listener; how could
> we possibly have found it if it had NULL ->addr?
> 
> Confused...

BTW, speaking of interesting corner cases in AF_UNIX: am I right assuming that
identical abstract names with different protocols are considered entirely
independent?  Where is that thing (== abstract namespace) documented, anyway?