[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <60F08DFD-02AF-45CD-9B37-FFB04C444BD4@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:38:43 +0000
From: Anjali Kulkarni <anjali.k.kulkarni@...cle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"zbr@...emap.net" <zbr@...emap.net>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"johannes@...solutions.net" <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"ecree.xilinx@...il.com" <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
"leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"socketcan@...tkopp.net" <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
"petrm@...dia.com" <petrm@...dia.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] netlink: Add multicast group level permissions
> On Mar 31, 2023, at 11:13 AM, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 17:48:18 +0000 Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 2023, at 10:24 AM, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 17:00:27 +0000 Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>>> Are you suggesting adding something like a new struct proto_ops for
>>>> the connector family? I have not looked into that, though that would
>>>> seem like a lot of work, and also I have not seen any infra structure
>>>> to call into protocol specific bind from netlink bind?
>>>
>>> Where you're adding a release callback in patch 2 - there's a bind
>>> callback already three lines above. What am I missing?
>> Ah yes, that one is actually meant to be used for adding(bind) and
>> deleting(unbind) multicast group memberships. So it is also called
>> from setsockopt() - so I think just checking for root access
>> permission changes the semantics of what it is meant to be used for?
>> Besides we would need to change some of that ordering there (check
>> for permissions & netlink_bind call) and changing it for all users of
>> netlink might not be a good idea…?
>
> AFAICT genetlink uses that callback in the way I'm suggesting already
> (see genl_bind()) so if you can spot a bug or a problem - we need to
> fix it :S
Ok, I will take a look and make the change.
Anjali
Powered by blists - more mailing lists