[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130201034629.GE8400@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:46:29 -0800
From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, amwang@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
pablo@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] netns: bridge: allow unprivileged users
add/delete mdb entry
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 10:30:59AM +0800, Gao feng wrote:
> since the mdb table is belong to bridge device,and the
> bridge device can only be seen in one netns.
> So it's safe to allow unprivileged user which is the
> creator of userns and netns to modify the mdb table.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> net/bridge/br_mdb.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_mdb.c b/net/bridge/br_mdb.c
> index acc9f4c..38991e0 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_mdb.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_mdb.c
> @@ -272,9 +272,6 @@ static int br_mdb_parse(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
> struct net_device *dev;
> int err;
>
> - if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
> - return -EPERM;
> -
I'm wondering why this doesn't follow the:
...
- if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
+ if (!ns_capable(net->user_ns, CAP_NET_ADMIN))
pattern like the rest of the changes you provided. Perhaps I'm
neglecting something but it looks wrong to remove the CAP_NET_ADMIN
check entirely.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
--
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