On Fri, 2019-05-10 at 11:32 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:49 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > calling connect(AF_UNSPEC) on an already connected TCP socket is an
> > established way to disconnect() such socket. After commit 68741a8adab9
> > ("selinux: Fix ltp test connect-syscall failure") it no longer works
> > and, in the above scenario connect() fails with EAFNOSUPPORT.
> >
> > Fix the above skipping the checks when the address family is not
> > AF_INET{4,6} - we don't have any port to validate, but leave the
> > SCTP code path untouched, as it has specific constraints.
> >
> > Fixes: 68741a8adab9 ("selinux: Fix ltp test connect-syscall failure")
> > Reported-by: Tom Deseyn <tdeseyn@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v1 -> v2:
> > - avoid validation for AF_UNSPEC
> > ---
> > security/selinux/hooks.c | 7 ++++---
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> What was wrong with explicitly checking for AF_UNSPEC as I mentioned
> in my last email?
Whoops sorry, I missed a relevant part of that email.
Reading it now.
To me, the 2 options look quite similar, and I have a slighter
preference for this one, being a smaller change possibly more suited to
a stable fix.
But if you have strong different opinions I can post the code you
suggested. I don't see any performance related issue with that.
Cheers,
Paolo
