netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: add sysctl allow_so_priority for SO

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 22 Oct 2011 02:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	zenczykowski@...il.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: add sysctl allow_so_priority for SO_PRIORITY
 setsockopt

From: Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:49:00 -0700

> However, processes can also manually override the sk_priority by calling
> SO_PRIORITY directly, at which point their IP_TOS and SO_PRIORITY no
> longer match.
> 
> This patch allows you to disable this ability.

I also don't see why we'd want to allow disabling this either.

I really hate these patches that offer ways to disable things
that normally work, and thus break apps when the non-default
is selected.

I kind of have a feeling the kind of situation you're trying to
account for, you have some cloud where people run random stuff
that you don't control.

But you didn't specify this, and we just have to guess.  Why don't you
describe the specific situation where you want to modify this setting?

Please do this instead of just talking about what the side effects are
inside of the kernel.  That's much less interesting when it comes to
patches like this.

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