netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net-loopback: allow lo dev initial state to be controlled

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:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 19:55:08 -0800
From:   Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) 
        <maheshb@...gle.com>
To:     nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com
Cc:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jian Yang <jianyang.kernel@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jian Yang <jianyang@...gle.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net-loopback: allow lo dev initial state to be controlled

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:03 AM Nicolas Dichtel
<nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
>
> Le 18/11/2020 à 18:39, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) a écrit :
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 8:58 AM Nicolas Dichtel
> > <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 18/11/2020 à 02:12, David Ahern a écrit :
> >> [snip]
> >>> If there is no harm in just creating lo in the up state, why not just do
> >>> it vs relying on a sysctl? It only affects 'local' networking so no real
> >>> impact to containers that do not do networking (ie., packets can't
> >>> escape). Linux has a lot of sysctl options; is this one really needed?
> >>>
> > I started with that approach but then I was informed about these
> > containers that disable networking all together including loopback.
> > Also bringing up by default would break backward compatibility hence
> > resorted to sysctl.
> >> +1
> >>
> >> And thus, it will benefit to everybody.
> >
> > Well, it benefits everyone who uses networking (most of us) inside
> Sure.
>
> > netns but would create problems for workloads that create netns to
> > disable networking. One can always disable it after creating the netns
> > but that would mean change in the workflow and it could be viewed as
> > regression.
> The networking is very limited with only a loopback. Do you have some real use
> case in mind?

My use cases all use networking but I think principally we cannot
break backward compatibility, right?
Jakub, WDYT?