[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0708201324570.2672@be1.lrz>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:45:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...e.nl>
cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, Mike Mohr <akihana@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: group ownership of tun devices -- nonfunctional?
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> On 08/19/2007 11:42 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > The intended [my me] semantics is If the user is not
> > * the allowed user
> > or
> > * member of the allowed group
> > or
> > * cabable of CAP_NET_ADMIN
> > then error out. I'm asuming
>
> There is a short description of the desired semantics in the link that was
> posted:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/18/228
>
> ===
> The user now is allowed to send packages if either his euid or his egid
> matches the one specified via tunctl (via -u or -g respecitvely). If both
> gid and uid are set via tunctl, both have to match.
> ===
>
> Paraphrasing the original code above, it's saying:
>
> if ((owner_is_set && does_not_match) || (group_is_set && does_not_match))
> bugger_off_unless(CAP_NET_ADMIN);
>
> or reverting the logic:
>
> if ((owner_is_unset || does_match) && (group_is_unset || does_match))
> good_to_go();
>
> which probably matches the intention -- we're good to go only if the
> credentials that are set also match.
Maybe there are valid reasons to do it this way, but I think having it the
way I described would be less confusing.
--
¤ Bill of Spammer-Rights ¤
1. We have the right to assassinate you.
2. You have the right to be assassinated.
3. You have the right to resist, but it is futile.
-
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