[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55B7A9A1.6010704@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:11:13 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: gospo@...ulusnetworks.com,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
ddutt@...ulusnetworks.com,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
jtoppins@...ulusnetworks.com,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Shrijeet Mukherjee <shm@...ulusnetworks.com>,
svaidya@...cade.com, hadi@...atatu.com,
nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 14/16] net: Add sk_bind_dev_if to task_struct
On 7/28/15 9:25 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2015 11:33 AM, "David Ahern" <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> Allow tasks to have a default device index for binding sockets. If set
>> the value is passed to all AF_INET/AF_INET6 sockets when they are created.
>>
>
> This is not intended to be a review of the concept. I haven't thought
> about whether the concept is a good idea, broken by design, or
> whatever. FWIW, if this were added to the kernel and didn't require
> excessive privilege, I'd probably use it. (I still don't really
> understand why binding to a device requires privilege in the first
> place, but, again, I haven't thought about it very much.)
The intent here is to restrict a task to only sending and receiving
packets from a single network device. The device can be single ethernet
interface, a stacked device (e.g, bond) or in our case a VRF device
which restricts a task to interfaces (and hence network paths)
associated with the VRF.
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET
>> + case PR_SET_SK_BIND_DEV_IF:
>> + {
>> + struct net_device *dev;
>> + int idx = (int) arg2;
>> +
>> + if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
>> + return -EPERM;
>> +
>
> Can you either use ns_capable or add a comment as to why not?
will do.
>
> Also, please return -EINVAL if unused args are nonzero.
ok.
>
>> + if (idx) {
>> + dev = dev_get_by_index(me->nsproxy->net_ns, idx);
>> + if (!dev)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + dev_put(dev);
>> + }
>> + me->sk_bind_dev_if = idx;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + case PR_GET_SK_BIND_DEV_IF:
>> + {
>> + struct task_struct *tsk;
>> + int sk_bind_dev_if = -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + tsk = find_task_by_vpid(arg2);
>> + if (tsk)
>> + sk_bind_dev_if = tsk->sk_bind_dev_if;
>
> Why do you support different tasks here? Could this use proc instead?
In this case we want to allow a separate process to determine if a task
is restricted to a device.
>
> The same -EINVAL issue applies.
>
> Also, I think you need to hook setns and unshare to do something
> reasonable when the task is bound to a device.
ack on both.
Thanks for the review,
David
--
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