From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=q6Zc=QS=vger.kernel.org=netdev-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42ABC282C2
	for <netdev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:19:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDC320838
	for <netdev@archiver.kernel.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:19:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1726755AbfBKDTy (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 10 Feb 2019 22:19:54 -0500
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:41018 "EHLO
        ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726157AbfBKDTx (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 10 Feb 2019 22:19:53 -0500
Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.91 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
        id 1gt28L-0004VX-VF; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:19:50 +0000
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 03:19:49 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] apparently bogus logics in unix_find_other() since 2002
Message-ID: <20190211031949.GA15980@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20190210042414.GH2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190210042414.GH2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:24:15AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> Looks like that should be impossible; what am I missing here?  Incidentally,
> how can the quoted fragment in in unix_stream_connect() be reached with NULL
> otheru->addr?  After all, otheru is unix_sock of a listener; how could
> we possibly have found it if it had NULL ->addr?
> 
> Confused...

BTW, speaking of interesting corner cases in AF_UNIX: am I right assuming that
identical abstract names with different protocols are considered entirely
independent?  Where is that thing (== abstract namespace) documented, anyway?