linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: connector: Add network namespace awareness

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: <20200702191025.bqxqwsm6kwnhm2p7@wittgenstein>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 21:10:25 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Matt Bennett <matt.bennett@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zbr@...emap.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] RFC: connector: Add network namespace awareness

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 08:17:38AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Matt Bennett <matt.bennett@...iedtelesis.co.nz> writes:
> 
> > Previously the connector functionality could only be used by processes running in the
> > default network namespace. This meant that any process that uses the connector functionality
> > could not operate correctly when run inside a container. This is a draft patch series that
> > attempts to now allow this functionality outside of the default network namespace.
> >
> > I see this has been discussed previously [1], but am not sure how my changes relate to all
> > of the topics discussed there and/or if there are any unintended side effects from my draft
> > changes.
> 
> Is there a piece of software that uses connector that you want to get
> working in containers?
> 
> I am curious what the motivation is because up until now there has been
> nothing very interesting using this functionality.  So it hasn't been
> worth anyone's time to make the necessary changes to the code.

Imho, we should just state once and for all that the proc connector will
not be namespaced. This is such a corner-case thing and has been
non-namespaced for such a long time without consistent push for it to be
namespaced combined with the fact that this needs quite some code to
make it work correctly that I fear we end up buying more bugs than we're
selling features. And realistically, you and I will end up maintaining
this and I feel this is not worth the time(?). Maybe I'm being too
pessimistic though.

Christian