netdev - Re: [PATCH] af_unix: Allow Unix sockets to raise SIGURG

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, 29 Jan 2021 12:02:50 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Shoaib Rao <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
Cc:     "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        andy.rudoff@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] af_unix: Allow Unix sockets to raise SIGURG

On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:48:15 -0800 Shoaib Rao wrote:
> >> SO_OOBINLINE does not control the delivery of signal, It controls how
> >> OOB Byte is delivered. It may not be obvious but this change does not
> >> deliver any Byte, just a signal. So, as long as sendmsg flag contains
> >> MSG_OOB, signal will be delivered just like it happens for TCP.  
> > Not as far as I can read this code. If MSG_OOB is set the data from the
> > message used to be discarded, and EOPNOTSUPP returned. Now the data gets
> > queued to the socket, and will be read inline.  
> 
> Data was discarded because the flag was not supported, this patch 
> changes that but does not support any urgent data.

When you say it does not support any urgent data do you mean the
message len must be == 0 because something is checking it, or that 
the code does not support its handling?

I'm perfectly fine with the former, just point me at the check, please.

> OOB data has some semantics that would have to be followed and if we 
> support SO_OOBINLINE we would have to support NOT SO_OOBINLINE.
> 
> One can argue that we add a socket option to allow this OR just do what 
> TCP does.