netdev - Re: [PATCH] iproute2: hide devices starting with period by default

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: <01aa60dc-8bf2-3207-1abe-158100f52960@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2017 13:47:36 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...hat.com>, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iproute2: hide devices starting with period by default

On 5/4/17 1:10 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 05/04/2017 09:37 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 5/4/17 9:15 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>>> Le 24/02/2017 à 16:52, David Ahern a écrit :
>>>> On 2/23/17 8:12 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>>>> This really need to be a fundamental facility, so that it transparently
>>>>> works for NetworkManager, router daemons, everything.  Not just iproute2
>>>>> and "ls".
>>>>
>>>> I'll rebase my patch and send out as RFC.
>>>>
>>> David, did you finally send those patches?
>>>
>>
>> No, but for a few reasons.
>>
>> It is easy to hide devices in a dump:
>>
>> https://github.com/dsahern/linux/commit/48a80a00eac284e58bae04af10a5a932dd7aee00
>>
>>
>> But I think those devices should also not exist in sysfs or procfs which
>> overlaps what I would like to see for lightweight netdevices:
>>
>> https://github.com/dsahern/linux/commit/70574be699cf252e77f71e3df11192438689f976
> 
> Interesting that does indeed solve the same problems as the L2 only
> patch set intended. I am not exactly sure if hiding the devices from
> procfs/sysfs would be appropriate in my case (dumb L2 only switch that
> only does 802.1q for instance), but why not.
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> and to be complete, hidden devices should not be allowed to have a
>> network address or transmit packets which is the L2 only intent from
>> Florian:
>>     https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg340808.html
>>
> 
> Do you plan on submitting the LWT patch set at some point?

Definitely. Maybe I can find some time this weekend.