netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS.

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: <485652EA.2020004@trash.net>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:47:54 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Julius Volz <juliusv@...gle.com>
CC:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, Vince Busam <vbusam@...gle.com>,
	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/26] IPVS: Add first IPv6 support to IPVS.

Julius Volz wrote:
> Thanks. I've now looked closer at Netlink and read the Genetlink implementation.
> 
> For the new IPVS interface, is there a preference for the granularity
> of the top-level Genetlink operations?
> 
> I see three naive possibilities (one Genetlink op per line), if we
> start out with a straight mapping from the old API to the new one:
> 
> a)
> SET - covers all of previous IP_VS_SO_SET_*
> GET - covers all of previous IP_VS_SO_GET_*
> 
> b) more split up
> ADD - services and destinations
> EDIT - services and destinations
> DEL - services and destinations
> SETTIMEOUT
> STARTDAEMON
> STOPDAEMON
> ZERO
> (+ granular GET commands...)
> 
> c) totally split up
> ADD_SVC
> ADD_DEST
> EDIT_SVC
> EDIT_DEST
> DEL_SVC
> DEL_DEST
> SETTIMEOUT
> STARTDAEMON
> STOPDAEMON
> ZERO
> (+ granular GET commands...)
> 
> I find http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Net:Generic_Netlink_HOWTO saying:
> ===========================
> Operation Granularity
> 
> While it may be tempting to register a single operation for a Generic
> Netlink family and multiplex multiple sub-commands on the single
> operation, this is strongly discouraged for security reasons.
> Combining multiple behaviors into one operation makes it difficult to
> restrict the operations using the existing Linux kernel security
> mechanisms.
> ===========================
> 
> Option c) looks reasonable to me and also seems easy to handle in
> general. Is this the way to go? Or do we want the interface to look
> completely different this time?

b) or c) both look fine. You could save a few operations (ADD/EDIT
can be combined) by making use of nlmsg_flags though:

The semantics of the flags is:

- NLM_F_CREATE|NLM_F_EXCL: create if non-existant
- NLM_F_REPLACE: change existing
- NLM_F_CREATE|NLM_F_REPLACE: create if non-existing, replace otherwise
- NLM_F_EXCL: test existance

NLM_F_APPEND can be used as modifier for NLM_F_CREATE to
specify that the new entry should be added to the end instead
of the beginning.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html