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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20120312095840.GM15404@secunet.com> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:58:40 +0100 From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Namespaces and inetpeer On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 02:35:05AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:57:56 +0100 > > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:25:29AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > >> Hi: > >> > >> While looking through the inetpeer code I noticed that there is > >> no namespace support at all. This means that metric and other > >> information will be leaking across namespaces. As IP addresses > >> are meant to be independent between them, this is not a good thing. > >> > > > > Actually, it would be nice if we could have an inetpeer base per > > fib table. This would imply namespace awareness and it would > > handle the problem when we have mulitiple routes (with different > > metrics etc.) to the same ip address on policy routing. > > Then you will ask for one per security policy too, to handle IPSEC. Hm, I don't see why this would be needed too. It was just an idea to handle the metrcis with policy routing. Better ideas are very welcome of course :) -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists