From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Make sure we free the struct socket of SOCK_DEAD sockets Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:31:02 -0700 Message-ID: <87iqfljpc9.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1252946924-4401-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1252946924-4401-4-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <4AAE94D7.6060802@librato.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4AAE94D7.6060802-RdfvBDnrOixBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> (Oren Laadan's message of "Mon\, 14 Sep 2009 15\:09\:11 -0400") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Oren Laadan Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org OL> This works well for the case of successful restart, but I suspect it OL> doesn't cover two other cases: OL> 1) Malicious user removes the SOCK_DEAD marking off a socket. OL> 2) Restart fails after a socket is restored but before it is OL> attached to a process. Aww, come on... when are users ever malicious? :) Okay, I think I can handle both of these with a carefully-crafted obj->ops->drop() replacement. I don't want to get back to the orphan-all-by-default situation because it becomes hard to ensure that the socket object we later allocate receives proper treatment. Thanks. -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org