netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: allow CAP_NET_RAW to setsockopt SO

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHo-OowQakvfW_T0uPgBaUCheMehTzyGnOp0hqC+-SNdJVBjMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:30:55 -0700
From:	Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: allow CAP_NET_RAW to setsockopt SO_PRIORITY

> SO_PRIORITY can control prioritizations that are not influenced
> by packet contents.
>
> There is a huge difference.

I do agree that it can do that, but I'm not sure the difference is
huge as you so put it.
In the vast majority of cases prioritization is desired based on some
meaningful aspect
of a packet that can also be observed later on in the network - hence
vlan tags, tos/tclass marks,
protocol, port numbers and the like.

I guess to me, in the real world (or at least the portion of it I'm
aware of), the difference is minor at best.

Being able to select xmit queues, is kind of like being able to select
output device.
You give a CAP_NET_RAW process raw access to the wire - prioritization seems
just one more aspect of this.  Especially since this isn't permanently
reconfiguring anything.

Anyway, enough discussion ;-)

Cheers,
Maciej
--
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