netdev - Re: [PATCH] drivers: connector: cn_proc: allow limiting certain messages

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:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:46:12 +0300
From:   Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:     "Daniel Walker (danielwa)" <danielwa@...co.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: connector: cn_proc: allow limiting certain messages

18.02.2020, 19:30, "Daniel Walker (danielwa)" <danielwa@...co.com>:

> It's multicast and essentially broadcast messages .. So everyone gets every
> message, and once it's on it's likely it won't be turned off. Given that, It seems
> appropriate that the system administrator has control of what messages if any
> are sent, and it should effect all listening for messages.
>
> I think I would agree with you if this was unicast, and each listener could tailor
> what messages they want to get. However, this interface isn't that, and it would
> be considerable work to convert to that.

Connector has message/channel ids, you can implement this rate limiting scheme per user/socket.

This is probably not required if given cn_proc usecase - is it some central authority
which needs or doesn't need some messages? If so, it can not be bad to have a central switch.

But I also heard that container management tools are using this, in this case disabling some
things globally will suddenly break them.