lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:48:34 +0400 From: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com> To: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org> CC: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>, Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>, Linux-NFS <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...nvz.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: connect to UNIX sockets synchronously 04.12.2012 18:20, Eric Paris пишет: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Stanislav Kinsbursky > <skinsbursky@...allels.com> wrote: > >> But there should be noted, that such implementation introduces limitation >> (Trond's quote): >> "That approach can fall afoul of the selinux restrictions on the process >> context. Processes that are allowed to write data, may not be allowed to >> create sockets or call connect(). That is the main reason for doing it >> in the rpciod context, which is a clean kernel process context." > > So you tested this and Trond was wrong? This work just fine even on > an SELinux box? Or it does break tons and tons of people's computers? > > -Eric > You can read discussion here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1565111/ We use AF_LOCAL transports only for portmapper calls. So, we decided (or at least I understood that so) to make such connections from process context - i.e. synchronously. -- Best regards, Stanislav Kinsbursky -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists