netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] af_unix: Don't peek OOB data without MSG

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: <20240416221055.35661-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:10:55 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
To: <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<kuni1840@...il.com>, <kuniyu@...zon.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 2/2] af_unix: Don't peek OOB data without MSG_OOB.

From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:01:15 -0700
> On 4/16/24 14:47, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
> > Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 14:34:20 -0700
> >> On 4/16/24 13:51, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> >>> From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
> >>> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 13:11:09 -0700
> >>>> The proposed fix is not the correct fix as among other things it does
> >>>> not allow going pass the OOB if data is present. TCP allows that.
> >>>
> >>> Ugh, exactly.
> >>>
> >>> But the behaviour was broken initially, so the tag is
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 314001f0bf92 ("af_unix: Add OOB support")
> >>>
> >>
> >> Where is this requirement listed?
> > 
> > Please start with these docs.
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PswtQoZm7r5MGnH8pv3OewI_PvmSRJb29YcA0pnVOzuu8T3xvWlw4lLlLzFhzn6uO2lo0bUA5Yikc2A$
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PswtQoZm7r5MGnH8pv3OewI_PvmSRJb29YcA0pnVOzuu8T3xvWlw4lLlLzFhzn6uO2lo0bUAdoz3l7w$
> > 
> > 
> That is a suggestion. I see commits in even af_unix.c which do not 
> follow that convention. They just mention what the fix is about. In this 
> case it is implied.
> 
> I am not opposed specifying it but it seems it's optional.

You want to read the 2nd doc.

  1.1 tl;dr
  for fixes the Fixes: tag is required, regardless of the tree