Re: Linux inetd..

[avalon () COOMBS ANU EDU AU (Darren Reed)]

In some mail from Alan Cox, sie said:
> > 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.

I don't see that being a problem for the BSD inetd as it fork()s before the
write and the process which receives the SIGPIPE is a child of inetd, not
the master (so to speak).  I would have thought the linux one would behave
the same.

Darren