[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170114001138.GC3094@templeofstupid.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:11:38 -0800
From: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] Introduce a sysctl that modifies the value
of PROT_SOCK.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 06:39:57AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 22:52 -0800, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > Add net.ipv4.ip_unprotected_port_start, which is a per namespace sysctl
> > that denotes the first unprotected inet port in the namespace. To
> > disable all protected ports set this to zero. It also checks for
> > overlap with the local port range. The protected and local range may
> > not overlap.
> >
> > The use case for this change is to allow containerized processes to bind
> > to priviliged ports, but prevent them from ever being allowed to modify
> > their container's network configuration. The latter is accomplished by
> > ensuring that the network namespace is not a child of the user
> > namespace. This modification was needed to allow the container manager
> > to disable a namespace's priviliged port restrictions without exposing
> > control of the network namespace to processes in the user namespace.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
> > ---
> > include/net/ip.h | 10 +++++++++
> > include/net/netns/ipv4.h | 1 +
> > net/ipv4/af_inet.c | 5 ++++-
> > net/ipv4/sysctl_net_ipv4.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > net/ipv6/af_inet6.c | 3 ++-
> > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_ctl.c | 7 +++---
> > net/sctp/socket.c | 10 +++++----
> > security/selinux/hooks.c | 3 ++-
>
> Adding a new sysctl without documentation is generally not accepted.
>
> Please take a look at Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt
Thanks for catching this. I'll add an entry to the documentation.
> BTW, sticking to 'unprivileged' ports might be better than 'unprotected'
> which is vague.
I don't have a strong preference about the naming. I'd be happy to
change it to 'unprivileged' instead.
-K
Powered by blists - more mailing lists