netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4: Disallow non-namespace aware protocols to register.

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: <20130215.150925.1823432700085402856.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:09:25 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ebiederm@...ssion.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: Disallow non-namespace aware protocols to
 register.

From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:05:18 -0800

> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> 
>> From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
>> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:25:26 -0800
>>
>>> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
>>> 
>>>> All in-tree ipv4 protocol implementations are now namespace
>>>> aware.  Therefore all the run-time checks are superfluous.
>>>>
>>>> Reject registry of any non-namespace aware ipv4 protocol.
>>>> Eventually we'll remove prot->netns_ok and this registry
>>>> time check as well.
>>> 
>>> It has been a long time coming but this is very cool to see we have
>>> finally made all of ipv4 network namespace aware.
>>
>> BTW, I took a look at ipv6 and unlike ipv4 there seems to be no sanity
>> checks or per-protocol booleans indicating proper netns support.
>>
>> Is my interpretation right that ipv6 just assumes all registered
>> protocols are netns aware at this point?
> 
> It looks like when the ipv6 network namespace work was done work that
> check was not added to the ipv6 code :( I skimmed through the history
> and I don't see any signs that anything was every done with struct
> inet6_protocol.  Nor when I looked at the addition of netns support to
> the ipv6 udp code were there any switches flipped.
> 
>> If so that was definitely a bug, because things like l2tp have an
>> ipv6 component and were not fully netns aware until very recently.
> 
> Agreed it was a bug.
> 
> I have just read through all of the handlers registered with
> inet6_add_protocol in my 3.8 development tree and it appears that
> everything except l2tp has network namespace support.  And l2tp is fixed
> in net-next so we appear to be good now.

Thanks for confirming my analysis.
--
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