[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170123.153949.1298637068250931720.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:39:49 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: kjlx@...pleofstupid.com
Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] Introduce a sysctl that modifies the value
of PROT_SOCK.
From: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 17:49:11 -0800
> Add net.ipv4.ip_unprivileged_port_start, which is a per namespace sysctl
> that denotes the first unprivileged inet port in the namespace. To
> disable all privileged ports set this to zero. It also checks for
> overlap with the local port range. The privileged 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>
I'm not ignoring this change, I just want to think about it some more.
Just FYI...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists