netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] netfilter: xtables: inclusion of xt

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: <alpine.LSU.2.01.1004211533410.21020@obet.zrqbmnf.qr>
Date:	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:35:45 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
cc:	Netfilter Developer Mailing List 
	<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] netfilter: xtables: inclusion of xt_SYSRQ


On Wednesday 2010-04-21 15:17, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Wednesday 2010-04-21 14:59, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> 
>>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>>> The SYSRQ target will allow to remotely invoke sysrq on the local
>>>> machine. Authentication is by means of a pre-shared key that can
>>>> either be transmitted plaintext or digest-secured.
>>> I really think this is pushing what netfilter is meant for a bit
>>> far. Its basically abusing the firewall ruleset to offer a network
>>> service.
>>>
>>> I can see that its useful to have this in the kernel instead of
>>> userspace, but why isn't this implemented as a stand-alone module?
>>> That seems like a better design to me and also makes it more useful
>>> by not depending on netfilter.
>> 
>> That sort of diverts from the earlier what-seemed-to-be-consensus.
>> 
>> Oh well, I would not mind holding the single commit up as long as the 
>> rest isn't blocked too :-)
>
>Then lets skip this one for now.

Well you raised the concern before -- namely that kdboe would have
the very same feature. And yet, kdboe was not part of the kernel.
Neither is the magical stand-alone module.
I really prefer to have it in rather than out, because I know
that's going to mess up maintenance-here-and-there. I'm already
having a big time with xtables-addons that still carries
xt_condition and SYSRQ for a while, and it does have some different
code lines than the kernel copy.
--
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