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 17:11:57 +0400
From:	"Denis V. Lunev" <den@...nvz.org>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, benjamin.thery@...l.net,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] [RFC] netns: enable cross-ve Unix sockets

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 14:31 +0200, 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.

I do not see much sense with sysctl as:
- check (cross-connected sockets) is required as we can start namespace
  with already opened socket
- this kind of sharing is not implicit but explicit as normal isolated
  containers _must_ have separate filesystems. In this case this
  sharing requires explicit host administrator action to link socket
  between containers

--
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