Re: Linux inetd..

From: Alan Cox (alanat_private)
Date: Tue Dec 02 1997 - 12:50:01 PST

  • Next message: Darren Reed: "Re: Linux inetd.."

    > Now you may be wondering why does a write to the socket returned by
    > accept() generates a SIGPIPE. This bring us to the second issue. It seems
    > that at least under Linux 2.0.X accept will return a socket in the
    > received queue if it is not in the SYN_SENT or SYN_RECV state, even when
    > it has not gone through the ESTABLISHED state.
    >
    > By doing a stealth scan on the port the socket goes from the SYN_RECV
    > state to the CLOSED state. When you try to read from such a socket you
    > get a SIGPIPE. The sematics of Linux's accept seems to be non-standard. I
    > wonder what else breaks by not handling SIGPIPE.
    
    On that issue you are a little astray. Linux merely made the window for
    the inetd problem a bit larger. You can hit a box betwen the accept
    returning towards user space and the write() with a seperate RST frame
    regardless of what accept returns. If generic BSD has this missing
    SIGPIPE I venture to say that if you can hit the precise boundary needed
    you can bring down inetd there too.
    
    ie
                    SYN/ SYN-RECV/ ACK
            accept()
                    RST
            write()
            SIGPIPE
    
    Alan
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:34:01 PDT