netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] [RFC] netns: enable cross-ve Unix sockets

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:	Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:08:07 +0200
From:	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
To:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
CC:	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>, Denis Lunev <den@...nvz.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, benjamin.thery@...l.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RFC] netns: enable cross-ve Unix sockets

Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>>> So there are 2 cases:
>>>>   * full isolation : restriction on VPS
>>>>   * partial isolation : no restriction but *perhaps* problem when migrating
>>>>
>>>> Looks like we need an option per namespace to reduce the isolation for 
>>>> af_unix sockets :)
>>>>   - on (default): current behaviour => full isolation
>>>>   - off : partial isolation
>>> You mean some sysctl, that enables/disables this check in unix_find_socket_byinode?
>> Yes.
> 
> OK. Den, please, do :)

hmm, would that allow sibling namespaces to connect to each other ? If so, 
I'm not in favor of such a solution. 

I understand the need. we had a similar issue with the command line tool 
pgsl. Could we work something out with the capabilities ? or make an 
exception if your ->nsproxy->net_ns == init_net ? 

Thanks,

C.  
--
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