From: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, stephen@networkplumber.org,
w.bumiller@proxmox.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dsahern@gmail.com,
davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1 v2] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 12:13:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180207121309.46fdce62@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877erphhry.fsf@xmission.com>
On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:31:29 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Frankly. If we are talking precedence it should be:
> fds
> netnsids
> pids
The current order is 1. pids, 2. fds, though. Not that it matters much,
see below.
> I do think it makes a lot of sense to error if someone passes in
> duplicate arguments. AKA multiple attribute that could select for
> the same thing. No one will do that deliberately. It doesn't make
> sense. So it is just a nonsense case we have to handle gracefully,
> and correctly. With correctness being the most important as otherwise
> people might just send in nonsense to exploit bugs.
Completely agreed. Let's just start returning error if more than one of
the pid/fs/netnsid attributes is specified. I don't think this is going
to break any user. And we'll not have to care about the order.
> I agree refusing to combine multiple attributes for the same thing
> sounds the most sensible course.
Yes, please.
Thanks!
Jiri
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-07 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-05 15:55 [PATCH net 0/1 v2] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier Christian Brauner
2018-02-05 15:55 ` [PATCH net 1/1 " Christian Brauner
2018-02-05 16:28 ` David Ahern
2018-02-05 21:47 ` Kirill Tkhai
2018-02-05 23:24 ` Christian Brauner
2018-02-06 10:49 ` Kirill Tkhai
2018-02-06 12:18 ` Christian Brauner
2018-02-06 22:31 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-02-07 11:13 ` Jiri Benc [this message]
2018-02-07 4:54 ` kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180207121309.46fdce62@redhat.com \
--to=jbenc@redhat.com \
--cc=christian.brauner@canonical.com \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=w.bumiller@proxmox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.