[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201002050305.22227.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 03:05:22 +0200
From: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, amwang@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
nhorman@...driver.com, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers
On Friday 05 February 2010 02:41:12 you wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
> > > Octavian Purdila wrote:
> > >> int inet_is_reserved_local_port(int port)
> > >> {
> > >> if (test_bit(port, reserved_ports))
> > >> return 1;
> > >> return 0;
> > >> }
> > >
> > > Above check is exactly what I'm doing in the LSM hook.
> >
> > But his version can be done inline in 2 or 3 instructions.
> >
> > An LSM hook will result in an indirect function call,
> > all live registers spilled to the stack, then all of
> > those reloaded when the function returns.
> >
> > It will be much more expensive.
>
> If you can accept his version, I want to use his version (with an interface
> for updating above "reserved_ports" by not only root user's sysctl() but
> also MAC's policy configuration).
>
I think that simply using an interface to update the reserved_ports from MAC
policy configuration module wouldn't work, as root will be able to modify the
policy via sysctl.
I think that we might need to:
a) have a reserved_port updater
b) put a LSM hook into that
c) use the reserved_port updater from sysctl
--
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