netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] tls: remove close callback sock unlock/lock and flush

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]

Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 20:46:03 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        edumazet@...gle.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tls: remove close callback sock unlock/lock and
 flush_sync

On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:59:25 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Sorry for all the questions, I'm not really able to fully wrap my head
> > > around this. I also feel like I'm missing the sockmap piece that may
> > > be why you prefer unhash over disconnect.    
> > 
> > Yep, if we try to support listening sockets we need a some more
> > core infrastructure to push around ulp and user_data portions of
> > sockets. Its not going to be nice for stable. Also at least in TLS
> > and sockmap case its not really needed for any use case I know
> > of.  
> 
> IIUC we can't go from ESTABLISHED to LISTEN without calling close() 
> or disconnect() so I'm not clear on why are we hooking into unhash() 😕

Ah, disconnect() is also called with the socket already locked.
So no BH, but still not great..