netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/1 v3] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:20:32 -0600
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>
Cc:     Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, ktkhai@...tuozzo.com,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, w.bumiller@...xmox.com,
        nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dsahern@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1 v3] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier

Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 12:19:25PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
>> On Tue,  6 Feb 2018 14:19:02 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> > +/* Verify that rtnetlink requests supporting network namespace ids
>> > + * do not pass additional properties potentially referring to different
>> > + * network namespaces.
>> > + */
>> > +static int rtnl_ensure_unique_netns(struct nlattr *tb[],
>> > +				    struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>> > +{
>> > +	/* Requests without network namespace ids have been able to specify
>> > +	 * multiple properties referring to different network namespaces so
>> > +	 * don't regress them.
>> > +	 */
>> > +	if (!tb[IFLA_IF_NETNSID])
>> > +		return 0;
>> 
>> I agree with Eric that we should enforce this also for the existing
>> pid/fd attributes.
>
> Yes, I would prefer this too but in the Linux spirit of never regressing
> userspace I was afraid that there might already be userspace
> applications that stick a pid and an fd at the same time into an
> rtnetlink request. If we are ok with potentially breaking them then we
> should just go for it. It is definitely the cleaner solution.

Odds are low that anything does anything so silly.  If we accidentally
cause a regression then we fix it.  Unless you have reason to suspect
someone actually does something silly we should be good.

Eric