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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMw=ZnQ-diFqFUCEpqBTDTNojfvqaGCtZSvh8+rE_z-KBNreqw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 21:17:46 +0100 From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Alexander Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@...onical.com>, davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/3] scm: add SO_PASSPIDFD and SCM_PIDFD On Mon, 22 May 2023 at 21:13, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 22 May 2023 15:19:17 +0200 Simon Horman wrote: > > > TLI, that AF_UNIX can be a kernel module... > > > I'm really not excited in exposing pidfd_prepare() to non-core kernel > > > code. Would it be possible to please simply refuse SO_PEERPIDFD and > > > SCM_PIDFD if AF_UNIX is compiled as a module? I feel that this must be > > > super rare because it risks breaking even simplistic userspace. > > > > It occurs to me that it may be simpler to not allow AF_UNIX to be a module. > > But perhaps that breaks something for someone... > > Both of the two options (disable the feature with unix=m, make unix > bool) could lead to breakage, I reckon at least the latter makes > the breakage more obvious? So not allowing AF_UNIX as a module > gets my vote as well. > > A mechanism of exporting symbols for core/internal use only would > find a lot of use in networking :( We are eagerly waiting for this UAPI to be merged so that we can use it in userspace (systemd/dbus/dbus-broker/polkitd), so I would much rather if such impactful changes could be delayed until after, as there is bound to be somebody complaining about such a change, and making this dependent on that will likely jeopardize landing this series. v6 adds fixed this so that's disabled if AF_UNIX is not built-in via 'IS_BUILTIN', and that seems like a perfect starting point to me, if AF_UNIX can be made non-optional or non-module it can be refactored easily later. Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists