netdev - Re: [Patch net-next] ipv6: add missing /proc/sys/net/ipv6/ping_group

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1370833322.11543.1.camel@cr0>
Date:	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:02:02 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] ipv6: add missing
 /proc/sys/net/ipv6/ping_group_range

On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 18:42 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
> > commit 6d0bfe22611602f366 (net: ipv6: Add IPv6 support to the ping socket.)
> > adds IPv6 ping socket support, but forgot to create
> > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/ping_group_range, therefore it wrongly shares
> > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ping_group_range with IPv4.
> 
> As you said, I'm not sure that sharing the sysctl file with IPv4 is a
> problem. Is it useful to support different permissions for IPv4 ping
> versus IPv6 ping? I would imagine that if an admin wants certain
> groups to be able to run ping, those groups would be the same for IPv4
> ping and IPv6 ping. But I'm not the authority here. Maybe David has an
> opinion?
> 

I think we can just ignore the patch for now, we can add it if someone
requests for it in future.

--
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