netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Only honor ifindex in IP

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]

Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:12:08 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Only honor ifindex in IP_PKTINFO if non-0

On 2/16/18 2:43 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:03:03 -0800
> 
>> Only allow ifindex from IP_PKTINFO to override SO_BINDTODEVICE settings
>> if the index is actually set in the message.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
> 
> Ok, this behavior meets reasonable expectations, applied, thanks.
> 
> None of the documation is clear about this relationship between
> ip_pktinfo's ifindex and settings made by SO_BINDTODEVICE.
> 

It is my understanding that SO_BINDTODEVICE is the strongest -- it
requires admin to set. From there IP_PKTINFO and IP_UNICAST_IF are
non-root options and hence weaker. If that is the proper expectation,
then the right thing to do is probably to error out if ipc.oif is
already set. I was concerned that would break existing apps, so this
seemed to be a compromise.