[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170515.095228.1483686375235860235.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:52:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: ebiederm@...ssion.com, mahesh@...dewar.net, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, edumazet@...gle.com, maheshb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmod: don't load module unless req process has
CAP_SYS_MODULE
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 08:10:59 +0200
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:57:34AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/rtnetlink.c b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
>> index bcb0f610ee42..6b72528a4636 100644
>> --- a/net/core/rtnetlink.c
>> +++ b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
>> @@ -2595,7 +2595,7 @@ static int rtnl_newlink(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>>
>> if (!ops) {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_MODULES
>> - if (kind[0]) {
>> + if (kind[0] && capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)) {
>> __rtnl_unlock();
>> request_module("rtnl-link-%s", kind);
>> rtnl_lock();
>
> I don't object to this if the networking developers don't mind the
> change in functionality. They can handle the fallout :)
As I've said in another email, I am pretty sure this can break things.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists