From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] c/r: Add AF_UNIX support (v6) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:59:27 -0500 Message-ID: <20090729145927.GA8377@us.ibm.com> References: <1248295301-30930-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1248295301-30930-6-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <4A6F2D62.9040005@librato.com> <87ljm8czsf.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <4A6F6B19.9010508@librato.com> <20090729133606.GB31730@us.ibm.com> <87bpn3o87o.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bpn3o87o.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dan Smith Cc: Oren Laadan , containers@lists.osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Quoting Dan Smith (danms@us.ibm.com): > SH> At the moment you miss out on the security_socket_connect() call. > > Is that any different than the path involved when a process does a > socketpair() call? > > SH> Still your code is so customized that perhaps an explicit > SH> security_socket_connect() call in your sock_unix_join() may be the > SH> way to go... > > So, when I do the join, I really should run the check on both the > remote and local addresses, right? The join operation is not really a > connect in the sense of being one-sided... Ok well if a join is not a connect then ignore me. I'll set a block of time aside to take a closer look on your next submit. thanks, -serge