From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Sep  1 20:49:31 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F6814FDA
	for <freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed,  1 Sep 1999 20:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au)
Received: (from avalon@localhost)
	by cheops.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA23859;
	Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:47:10 +1000 (EST)
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199909020347.NAA23859@cheops.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: socket buffer limits (was: Re: FW: Local DoS in FreeBSD)
To: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:47:10 +1000 (EST)
Cc: Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199909020335.XAA08433@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett Wollman" at Sep 1, 99 11:35:05 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


How about failing setsockopt's when they try to increase buffer space
if it would mean buffer space commitments would exceed a high water mark ?

Also, what if mbufs are dropped and/or send/write fails (ENOBUFS) if there
is nobody waiting to receive data and a high water mark has been reached ?

Darren


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message