linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] connector/cn_proc: Add filtering to fix some bugs

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]

Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2023 09:38:43 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Anjali Kulkarni <anjali.k.kulkarni@...cle.com>,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
        zbr@...emap.net, johannes@...solutions.net, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
        leon@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org, socketcan@...tkopp.net,
        petrm@...dia.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] connector/cn_proc: Add filtering to fix some bugs

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 05:24:41PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:15:44 -0800 Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/connector.h b/include/linux/connector.h
> > index 487350bb19c3..1336a5e7dd2f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/connector.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/connector.h
> > @@ -96,7 +96,11 @@ void cn_del_callback(const struct cb_id *id);
> >   *
> >   * If there are no listeners for given group %-ESRCH can be returned.
> >   */
> > -int cn_netlink_send_mult(struct cn_msg *msg, u16 len, u32 portid, u32 group, gfp_t gfp_mask);
> > +int cn_netlink_send_mult(struct cn_msg *msg, u16 len, u32 portid,
> > +			 u32 group, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> > +			 int (*filter)(struct sock *dsk, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > +				       void *data),
> > +			 void *filter_data);
> 
> kdoc needs to be extended

just a thought from my side. I think giving access to unprivileged users
will require a little thought as that's potentially sensitive.

If possible I would think that the patches that don't lead to a
behavioral change should go in completely independently and then we can
discuss the non-root access change.