netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] macvlan: pass get_ts_info and SIOC[SG]HWTSTAMP ioctl to real device

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:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 20:59:58 +0200
From:   Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
        stefan.sorensen@...ctralink.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] macvlan: pass get_ts_info and SIOC[SG]HWTSTAMP
 ioctl to real device

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 08:43:06 -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> If NET_ADMIN is enabled in the container, don't the host and container
> contend with each other for the physical interfaces anyhow?

Physical interfaces are not a problem, as each interface can be only in
a single net name space.

The problem here is this patch gives access to physical interface
settings through a virtual interface layered on top of it. Whenever
such thing is done, the virtual interface needs to provide a suitable
way of moderating access to the shared resources, so the individual
virtual interfaces do not affect each other. That's not what's being
done here.

I think this patch is wrong.

 Jiri