netdev - Re: [PATCH next 02/84] ipvs: Don't use current in proc_do_defense

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: <87oagtc351.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 20:53:30 -0500
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
Cc:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next 02/84] ipvs: Don't use current in proc_do_defense_mode

Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 01:01:39PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Instead store ipvs in extra2 so that proc_do_defense_mode can easily
>> find the ipvs that it's value is associated with.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>
> I am wondering if this fix should be included in v4.3 and stable.
> Can the problem occur in practice?

I believe a lookup in one network namespace followed by write in another
network namespace would do it.  So I think it would take so pretty
deliberate and more or less peculiar actions to make it happen.

I don't know how important the update_defense_level call is or how bad
it is if it does not run in a network namespace .

Eric
--
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