On Thursday 21 May 2009 02:06:59 ext Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
quoted text
> So that the socket layer kwows which protocol uses locking and can ask
> for an unlocked recvmsg call inside recvmmsg, that takes the lock for a
> batch of packets.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/socket.h |    3 ++
>  include/net/sock.h     |    5 ++++
>  net/core/sock.c        |   11 +++++++--
>  net/ipv4/udp.c         |   52
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- net/socket.c           |  
> 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 5 files changed, 87 insertions(+),
> 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/socket.h b/include/linux/socket.h
> index 50c6c44..7ef30a3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/socket.h
> +++ b/include/linux/socket.h
> @@ -265,6 +265,9 @@ struct ucred {
>  #define MSG_ERRQUEUE	0x2000	/* Fetch message from error queue */
>  #define MSG_NOSIGNAL	0x4000	/* Do not generate SIGPIPE */
>  #define MSG_MORE	0x8000	/* Sender will send more */
> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
> +#define MSG_UNLOCKED	0x10000	/* Don't lock the sock */
> +#endif

I might be missing something but... What prevents an evil userland from 
setting the flag anyway and hitting the BUG case?

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Nokia Devices R&D, Maemo Software, Helsinki

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html