netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 6/9] af_unix: Move SOCK_PASS{CRED,PIDFD,SEC} to struct sock.

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: <682767de92644_2af52b294e@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 12:29:18 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, 
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
 Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, 
 Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 6/9] af_unix: Move SOCK_PASS{CRED,PIDFD,SEC}
 to struct sock.

Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> As explained in the next patch, SO_PASSRIGHTS would have a problem
> if we assigned a corresponding bit to socket->flags, so it must be
> managed in struct sock.
> 
> Mixing socket->flags and sk->sk_flags for similar options will look
> confusing, and sk->sk_flags does not have enough space on 32bit system.
> 
> Also, as mentioned in commit 16e572626961 ("af_unix: dont send
> SCM_CREDENTIALS by default"), SOCK_PASSCRED and SOCK_PASSPID handling
> is known to be slow, and managing the flags in struct socket cannot
> avoid that for embryo sockets.
> 
> Let's move SOCK_PASS{CRED,PIDFD,SEC} to struct sock.
> 
> While at it, other SOCK_XXX flags in net.h are grouped as enum.
> 
> Note that assign_bit() was atomic, so the writer side is moved down
> after lock_sock() in setsockopt(), but the bit is only read once
> in sendmsg() and recvmsg(), so lock_sock() is not needed there.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>

Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>