>Darn. Screw #4 - it doesn't solve anything. Add #5: block on close()
>(maybe make it an setsockopt()-controllable). BTW, from my reading of
The attakker can run setsockopt ;).
Blocking on close looks messy to me. Application suppose that close()
doesn't block indefinetely. If we want to sleep in a usually-not-sleeping
path better to sleep in connect() ;).
Andrea Arcangeli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/