[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230228001117.193937-1-izbyshev@ispras.ru>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 03:11:17 +0300
From: Alexey Izbyshev <izbyshev@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: [PATCH v2] accept4: don't fall back to accept if we got unknown flags
accept4 emulation via accept ignores unknown flags, so it can spuriously
succeed instead of failing (or succeed without doing the action implied
by an unknown flag if it's added in a future kernel). Worse, unknown
flags trigger the fallback code even on modern kernels if the real
accept4 syscall returns EINVAL, because this is indistinguishable from
socketcall returning EINVAL due to lack of accept4 support.
Fix this by always failing with EINVAL if unknown flags are present and
the syscall is missing or failed with EINVAL.
---
Changed per https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2023/02/27/9.
The explicit errno variant is chosen because the surrounding code
already deals with errno.
Alexey
---
src/network/accept4.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/network/accept4.c b/src/network/accept4.c
index 59ab1726..765a38ed 100644
--- a/src/network/accept4.c
+++ b/src/network/accept4.c
@@ -9,6 +9,10 @@ int accept4(int fd, struct sockaddr *restrict addr, socklen_t *restrict len, int
if (!flg) return accept(fd, addr, len);
int ret = socketcall_cp(accept4, fd, addr, len, flg, 0, 0);
if (ret>=0 || (errno != ENOSYS && errno != EINVAL)) return ret;
+ if (flg & ~(SOCK_CLOEXEC|SOCK_NONBLOCK)) {
+ errno = EINVAL;
+ return -1;
+ }
ret = accept(fd, addr, len);
if (ret<0) return ret;
if (flg & SOCK_CLOEXEC)
--
2.39.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
