[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADZs7q7O9TL5wXFBq_SgAdNCkzO=3tyLnF1_chthX3jao=PKqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 12:48:25 +0200
From: Alban Crequy <alban@...volk.io>
To: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...il.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Iago López Galeiras <iago@...volk.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/4] bpf: sock ops: add netns ino and dev in
bpf context
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:03 PM Jakub Kicinski
<jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 17:48:45 +0200, Alban Crequy wrote:
> > In the unlikely case where network namespaces are not compiled in
> > (CONFIG_NET_NS=n), the verifier will not allow access to ->netns_*.
>
> Naive question - why return an error? init_net should always be there,
> no?
True for netns_dev. However, without CONFIG_NET_NS, we cannot access netns_ino:
(struct sock_common).possible_net_t.(struct net *):
typedef struct {
#ifdef CONFIG_NET_NS
struct net *net;
#endif
} possible_net_t;
And I don't think it would make much sense to allow access to
netns_dev but not netns_ino.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists