From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [Drbd-dev] [PATCH 2/2 v2] netlink: kill eff_cap from struct netlink_skb_parms Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:50:47 +0100 Message-ID: <4D764247.9080509@trash.net> References: <4D6F6180.5030903@trash.net> <20110303173230.GP4988@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20110303.105655.189705829.davem@davemloft.net> <20110303201522.GT4988@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20110303223746.GI25069@barkeeper1-xen.linbit> <20110304012956.GA13573@ioremap.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110304012956.GA13573@ioremap.net> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Evgeniy Polyakov Cc: Chris Wright , David Miller , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids Am 04.03.2011 02:29, schrieb Evgeniy Polyakov: > Hi. > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:37:46PM +0100, Lars Ellenberg (lars.ellenberg@linbit.com) wrote: >> If so, then this change introduces the possibility for normal users to >> send privileged commands to connector based subsystems, even if they >> may not be able to bind() to suitable sockets to receive any replies. >> >> Am I missing something? > > Yup, connector is very async at that place, but I wonder why the hell I > ever made that decision. I believe we can replace it with pure sync call > of the registered connector callback, since netlink is synchronous and > no one has any problem with it. > Are you going to do this or do you want me to take care of it? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:50:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [Drbd-dev] [PATCH 2/2 v2] netlink: kill eff_cap from struct netlink_skb_parms Message-Id: <4D764247.9080509@trash.net> List-Id: References: <4D6F6180.5030903@trash.net> <20110303173230.GP4988@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20110303.105655.189705829.davem@davemloft.net> <20110303201522.GT4988@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20110303223746.GI25069@barkeeper1-xen.linbit> <20110304012956.GA13573@ioremap.net> In-Reply-To: <20110304012956.GA13573@ioremap.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Evgeniy Polyakov Cc: Chris Wright , David Miller , linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com Am 04.03.2011 02:29, schrieb Evgeniy Polyakov: > Hi. > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:37:46PM +0100, Lars Ellenberg (lars.ellenberg@linbit.com) wrote: >> If so, then this change introduces the possibility for normal users to >> send privileged commands to connector based subsystems, even if they >> may not be able to bind() to suitable sockets to receive any replies. >> >> Am I missing something? > > Yup, connector is very async at that place, but I wonder why the hell I > ever made that decision. I believe we can replace it with pure sync call > of the registered connector callback, since netlink is synchronous and > no one has any problem with it. > Are you going to do this or do you want me to take care of it? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from soda.linbit (unknown [10.9.9.55]) by mail09.linbit.com (LINBIT Mail Daemon) with ESMTP id 644A71057487 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:38:21 +0100 (CET) Resent-Message-ID: <20110308163821.GC9823@barkeeper1-xen.linbit> Received: from stinky.trash.net (stinky.trash.net [213.144.137.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail09.linbit.com (LINBIT Mail Daemon) with ESMTPS id 544DE105747B for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:50:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4D764247.9080509@trash.net> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:50:47 +0100 From: Patrick McHardy MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Evgeniy Polyakov References: <4D6F6180.5030903@trash.net> <20110303173230.GP4988@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20110303.105655.189705829.davem@davemloft.net> <20110303201522.GT4988@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <20110303223746.GI25069@barkeeper1-xen.linbit> <20110304012956.GA13573@ioremap.net> In-Reply-To: <20110304012956.GA13573@ioremap.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wright , dm-devel@redhat.com, David Miller , drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com Subject: Re: [Drbd-dev] [PATCH 2/2 v2] netlink: kill eff_cap from struct netlink_skb_parms List-Id: Coordination of development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Am 04.03.2011 02:29, schrieb Evgeniy Polyakov: > Hi. > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:37:46PM +0100, Lars Ellenberg (lars.ellenberg@linbit.com) wrote: >> If so, then this change introduces the possibility for normal users to >> send privileged commands to connector based subsystems, even if they >> may not be able to bind() to suitable sockets to receive any replies. >> >> Am I missing something? > > Yup, connector is very async at that place, but I wonder why the hell I > ever made that decision. I believe we can replace it with pure sync call > of the registered connector callback, since netlink is synchronous and > no one has any problem with it. > Are you going to do this or do you want me to take care of it?