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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:19:29 +0100 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, stephen@...workplumber.org Cc: ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2 -next v2 4/5] {f,m}_bpf: allow updates on program arrays On Thu, Nov 26, 2015, at 15:38, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > +static int bpf_mnt_fs(const char *target) > +{ > + bool bind_done = false; > + > + while (mount("", target, "none", MS_PRIVATE | MS_REC, NULL)) { > + if (errno != EINVAL || bind_done) { > + fprintf(stderr, "mount --make-private %s failed: > %s\n", > + target, strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } > + > + if (mount(target, target, "none", MS_BIND, NULL)) { > + fprintf(stderr, "mount --bind %s %s failed: > %s\n", > + target, target, strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } > + > + bind_done = true; > + } Why does user space actually still have to deal with setting the mount point private? Isn't this handled by the kernel? > + if (mount("bpf", target, "bpf", 0, NULL)) { > + fprintf(stderr, "mount -t bpf bpf %s failed: %s\n", > + target, strerror(errno)); > + return -1; > + } Shouldn't this be just enough? > + return 0; > +} Thanks, Hannes -- 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