netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/1 v2] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180207121309.46fdce62@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Feb 2018 12:13:09 +0100
From:   Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
To:     ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, stephen@...workplumber.org,
        w.bumiller@...xmox.com, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dsahern@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1 v2] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier

On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:31:29 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Frankly.  If we are talking precedence it should be:
> fds
> netnsids
> pids

The current order is 1. pids, 2. fds, though. Not that it matters much,
see below.

> I do think it makes a lot of sense to error if someone passes in
> duplicate arguments.  AKA multiple attribute that could select for
> the same thing.   No one will do that deliberately.  It doesn't make
> sense.  So it is just a nonsense case we have to handle gracefully,
> and correctly.  With correctness being the most important as otherwise
> people might just send in nonsense to exploit bugs.

Completely agreed. Let's just start returning error if more than one of
the pid/fs/netnsid attributes is specified. I don't think this is going
to break any user. And we'll not have to care about the order.

> I agree refusing to combine multiple attributes for the same thing
> sounds the most sensible course.

Yes, please.

Thanks!

 Jiri