netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: Implement SO_PEERCGROUP and 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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:32:51 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	luto@...capital.net
Cc:	vgoyal@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
	ssorce@...hat.com, lpoetter@...hat.com, kay@...hat.com,
	dwalsh@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] net: Implement SO_PEERCGROUP and SO_PASSCGROUP
 socket options

From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:31:13 -0700

> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:29 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:08:59 -0700
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:05 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>>> From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:15:44 -0400
>>>>
>>>>> This is another version of patchset to add support passing cgroup
>>>>> information of client over unix socket API.
>>>>
>>>> I'm marking this patch series as "changes requested" in patchwork
>>>> because if we still end up adding this feature SO_PASSCGROUP needs to
>>>> be changed to behave like SO_PASSCRED.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, like SO_PASSCRED, it should pass the "real" cgroup, ie.
>>>> the cgroup at socket open() time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suspect that making this change will render it useless,
>>> unfortunately.  I really want to understand the use case.
>>
>> There was no use case, it is simply the fact that when I discussed this
>> feature with Vivek and Simo I told them that it should be implemented
>> the same as the existing credential facilities.
>>
>> For datagram situations there is no "peer" to consider in between
>> sendmsg() calls, as the binding is only active during the sendmsg()
>> call.
>>
>> That's why SO_PASSCRED exists in the first place.
>>
>> Otherwise, without SO_PASSCGROUP, there is no way for datagram sockets
>> to find out the peer's open() time cgroup.
> 
> Right.
> 
> I'd still like to know what userspace applications want this feature.
> The canonical example seems to be journald, but journald doesn't use
> unix datagram sockets AFAICS, nor is the process that opened the
> socket interesting (that process is always systemd).

It's about rounding out the interface properly, now, rather than having
to have a specific use case.

I really don't consider a specific use case as a requirement in this
case.
--
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