netdev - Re: tun: Use netif_receive_skb instead of netif

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:	Thu, 20 May 2010 07:15:07 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, bmb@...enacr.com,
	tgraf@...hat.com, nhorman@...driver.com, nhorman@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tun: Use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx

Le jeudi 20 mai 2010 à 13:34 +1000, Herbert Xu a écrit :

> The value is set at socket creation time.  So all sockets created
> via socket(2) automatically gains the ID of the thread creating it.
> Now you may argue that this may not be the same as the thread that
> is sending the packet.  However, we already have a precedence where
> an fd is passed to a different thread, its security property is
> inherited.  In this case, inheriting the classid of the thread
> creating the socket is also the logical thing to do.

I find this very biased, sorry.

In fact, fd passing is just fine today, if we consider that we classify
packets using the identity of the process *using* the fd, not the one
that *created* it.

Now your patch changes this, to the reverse, and you justify the caching
effect on socket. Sorry, this must be too convoluted for me.




--
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