* [PATCH] decnet: fix shutdown parameter checking
@ 2012-08-27 2:37 Xi Wang
2012-08-27 9:16 ` Steven Whitehouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Xi Wang @ 2012-08-27 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David S. Miller; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, Xi Wang
The allowed value of "how" is SHUT_RD/SHUT_WR/SHUT_RDWR (0/1/2),
rather than SHUTDOWN_MASK (3).
Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
---
net/decnet/af_decnet.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/decnet/af_decnet.c b/net/decnet/af_decnet.c
index 2ba1a28..307c322 100644
--- a/net/decnet/af_decnet.c
+++ b/net/decnet/af_decnet.c
@@ -1313,10 +1313,10 @@ static int dn_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int how)
if (scp->state == DN_O)
goto out;
- if (how != SHUTDOWN_MASK)
+ if (how != SHUT_RDWR)
goto out;
- sk->sk_shutdown = how;
+ sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
dn_destroy_sock(sk);
err = 0;
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] decnet: fix shutdown parameter checking
2012-08-27 2:37 [PATCH] decnet: fix shutdown parameter checking Xi Wang
@ 2012-08-27 9:16 ` Steven Whitehouse
2012-08-31 19:57 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Steven Whitehouse @ 2012-08-27 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xi Wang; +Cc: David S. Miller, netdev, linux-kernel
On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 22:37 -0400, Xi Wang wrote:
> The allowed value of "how" is SHUT_RD/SHUT_WR/SHUT_RDWR (0/1/2),
> rather than SHUTDOWN_MASK (3).
>
> Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Although it could be argued that we should also continue to accept the
value 3 just in case there is any userland software out there which
sends that value,
Steve.
> ---
> net/decnet/af_decnet.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/decnet/af_decnet.c b/net/decnet/af_decnet.c
> index 2ba1a28..307c322 100644
> --- a/net/decnet/af_decnet.c
> +++ b/net/decnet/af_decnet.c
> @@ -1313,10 +1313,10 @@ static int dn_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int how)
> if (scp->state == DN_O)
> goto out;
>
> - if (how != SHUTDOWN_MASK)
> + if (how != SHUT_RDWR)
> goto out;
>
> - sk->sk_shutdown = how;
> + sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
> dn_destroy_sock(sk);
> err = 0;
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] decnet: fix shutdown parameter checking
2012-08-27 9:16 ` Steven Whitehouse
@ 2012-08-31 19:57 ` David Miller
2012-09-05 8:37 ` Steven Whitehouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2012-08-31 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: swhiteho; +Cc: xi.wang, netdev, linux-kernel
From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:16:41 +0100
> On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 22:37 -0400, Xi Wang wrote:
>> The allowed value of "how" is SHUT_RD/SHUT_WR/SHUT_RDWR (0/1/2),
>> rather than SHUTDOWN_MASK (3).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
> Acked-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Applied to net-next.
> Although it could be argued that we should also continue to accept the
> value 3 just in case there is any userland software out there which
> sends that value,
True, but this is a rather standard BSD socket interface with a very
specific small set of legitimate input parameters. Allowing
deviation, even for compatability for specific protocols, is largely
unwise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] decnet: fix shutdown parameter checking
2012-08-31 19:57 ` David Miller
@ 2012-09-05 8:37 ` Steven Whitehouse
2012-09-05 17:00 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Steven Whitehouse @ 2012-09-05 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Miller; +Cc: xi.wang, netdev, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:57 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:16:41 +0100
>
> > On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 22:37 -0400, Xi Wang wrote:
> >> The allowed value of "how" is SHUT_RD/SHUT_WR/SHUT_RDWR (0/1/2),
> >> rather than SHUTDOWN_MASK (3).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xi Wang <xi.wang@gmail.com>
> > Acked-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
>
> Applied to net-next.
>
> > Although it could be argued that we should also continue to accept the
> > value 3 just in case there is any userland software out there which
> > sends that value,
>
> True, but this is a rather standard BSD socket interface with a very
> specific small set of legitimate input parameters. Allowing
> deviation, even for compatability for specific protocols, is largely
> unwise.
Yes, I'd agree on the whole, and certainly if this was a recent
addition. However since this code has been around for somewhere close to
16 years now, I'd say that means that either (a) nobody calls shutdown
for DECnet or (b) existing users are buggy too.
We do have a precedent for this kind of compatibility, such as the AX.25
use of SOCK_SEQPACKET.
However, I'm not overly worried and we'll soon know if it will cause any
problems or not,
Steve.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-05 17:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-08-27 2:37 [PATCH] decnet: fix shutdown parameter checking Xi Wang
2012-08-27 9:16 ` Steven Whitehouse
2012-08-31 19:57 ` David Miller
2012-09-05 8:37 ` Steven Whitehouse
2012-09-05 17:00 ` David Miller
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).