linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: event: Add netlink command for event mask

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABqG17gRpAcZhAkxfTnubrQ+d2gNvDk0fspQYZji+ujrLd_+TA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 20:50:17 +0530
From: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: event: Add netlink command for event mask

Hi

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 19:50, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:46:41PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On 1/16/24 12:31, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>
> > > Add netlink command to enable perticular event(s) broadcasting instead
>
> >
> > I think this mechanism for limiting events being forwarded to the listener
> > is worthy. My original idea was to utilize the netlink multicast groups for
> > this so that the regulator core would register multiple multicast groups for
> > this family. User would then listen only the groups he is interested, and
> > multiplexing the messages would be done by netlink/socket code.
>
> > Problem(?) of the approach you propose here is that the event filtering is
> > global for all users. If multicast groups were used, this filtering would be
> > done per listener socket basis. I'm not sure if that would be needed though,
> > but somehow I feel it would be more usable for different user-land
> > appliactions (cost being the increased complexity though).
>
> Thinking about this some more I do think that global filtering like
> the current patch would at least need some sort of permission check,
> otherwise just any random process can disrupt everyone's monitoring.
> Per socket filtering does seem like the way to go.
Agree. Will work on it & after validation will post the CL.
This change can be abandoned for now.

Regards,
Naresh