netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/4] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

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, 8 Dec 2022 08:19:55 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        "Olech, Milena" <milena.olech@...el.com>,
        "Michalik, Michal" <michal.michalik@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 2/4] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions

On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 09:14:32 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >Running DPLL control in a namespace / container.
> >
> >I mean - I generally think netns is overused, but yes, it's what
> >containers use, so I think someone may want to develop their
> >timer controller SW in as a container?  
> 
> The netdevices to control are already in the container. Isn't that
> enough?

For DPLL config we need to delegate the permission.
So we'd need a "is net admin in namespace X" check, no?

> >> Thinking about it a bit more, DPLL itself has no network notion. The
> >> special case is SyncE pin, which is linked to netdevice. Just a small
> >> part of dpll device. And the netdevice already has notion of netns.
> >> Isn't that enough?  
> >
> >So we can't use devlink or netdev. Hm. So what do we do?
> >Make DPLLs only visible in init_net? And require init_net admin?
> >And when someone comes asking we add an explicit "move to netns"
> >command to DPLL?  
> 
> Well, as I wrote. The only part needed to be network namespaced are the
> netdev related pins. And netdevices have netns support. So my question
> again, why is that not enough?

For config which goes thru rtnl, yes, but we also need a caps check for:

+	DPLL_CMD_DEVICE_SET,
+	DPLL_CMD_PIN_SET,