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]
Message-ID: <87obize6jp.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:14:50 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	"Myklebust\, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-nfs\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel\@openvz.org" <devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] SUNRPC: set desired file system root before connecting local transports

"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:51:33PM +0000, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 16:42 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> > Simo's patches use them for upcalls to svcgssd.  Those will always be
>> > done from server threads.
>> 
>> Any reason why you can't set that up when you start nfsd?
>
> Oh, right, I was thinking of the upcalls themselves--right, the connect
> we should be able to do on server start, I agree.
>
>> 
>> > > If not, then let's just move
>> > > the AF_LOCAL connection back into the process context and out of rpciod.
>> > 
>> > Remind me how this helps?
>> 
>> rpciod shares the 'init' process net namespace and chroot properties.
>> If, however you call bind() from the (containerised) process that was
>> used to start nfsd, then you will be using filesystem root (and net
>> namespace) of that container.
>
> Got it.

If you can move the connect and bind into the server start that does
sound like a very good and maintainable solution.  I suspect it might
even be a smidge better for error handling.

Is there ever a reason to reconnect one of these sockets?

Eric
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ