netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/2] net: Introducing socket mark receive socket option

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

Message-Id: <20150302.164520.1544544356329556012.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 02 Mar 2015 16:45:20 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eyal.birger@...il.com
Cc:	fw@...len.de, willemb@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	shmulik.ladkani@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 0/2] net: Introducing socket mark receive
 socket option

From: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 23:11:28 +0200

> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:57 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
>> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:38:50 +0200
>>
>>> I can sum up the motivation for this feature as follows:
>>>
>>> - skb->mark is set by user-space policy. It would make sense for
>>> user-space to be
>>>   able to query the resolution of that policy on a per packet basis -
>>> even if solely for the
>>>   purpose of debugging (e.g. fetching this meta-data on packet sockets
>>> on the xmit path
>>>   in order to debug tc behavior)
>>
>> It is also set by routing, netfilter, classifier rules installed by the
>> administrator.
>>
>> Therefore it is not universally true that it is safe to allow applications
>> to access this value.
>>
>> I'm not applying this series, it's use case is at best dubious to me and
>> there are security/protection concerns as well.
> 
> I understand. Thanks.
> 
> Would it be considered if access to the mark value was under CAP_NET_ADMIN
> similar to setting SO_MARK?

I said there are two issues blocking it's inclusion, so dealing with only
one of those is insufficient, right?
--
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