Skip to content

Move "Reasonable EOF on SOCK_SEQPACKET" from TODO to In-Progress #59

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
zlatistiv wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Move "Reasonable EOF on SOCK_SEQPACKET" from TODO to In-Progress #59

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
24 changes: 12 additions & 12 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -224,6 +224,18 @@ similar functions have `AT_EMPTY_PATH`.
**Use-Case:** When dealing with `O_PATH` file descriptors, allow
re-opening an operable version without the need of `procfs`.

### Reasonable EOF on SOCK_SEQPACKET

Zero size datagrams cannot be distinguished from EOF on
`SOCK_SEQPACKET`. Both will cause `recvmsg()` to return zero.

Idea how to improve things: maybe define a new MSG_XYZ flag for this,
which causes either of the two cases result in some recognizable error
code returned rather than a 0.

**Use-Case:** Any code that wants to use `SOCK_SEQPACKET` and cannot
effort disallowing zero sized datagrams from their protocol.

---

### TODO
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -797,18 +809,6 @@ speaking the 2nd idea makes the 1st idea half-way redundant.
so on) needs this, so that it can reasonably handle SELinux AVC errors
on received messages.

### Reasonable EOF on SOCK_SEQPACKET

Zero size datagrams cannot be distinguished from EOF on
`SOCK_SEQPACKET`. Both will cause `recvmsg()` to return zero.

Idea how to improve things: maybe define a new MSG_XYZ flag for this,
which causes either of the two cases result in some recognizable error
code returned rather than a 0.

**Use-Case:** Any code that wants to use `SOCK_SEQPACKET` and cannot
effort disallowing zero sized datagrams from their protocol.

### Reasonable Handling of SELinux dropping SCM_RIGHTS fds

Currently, if SELinux refuses to let some file descriptor through, it
Expand Down