Re: [PATCH net-next 14/16] net: Add sk_bind_dev_if to task_struct

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> writes:

> Hello Eric,
>
> On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 15:33 -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Allow tasks to have a default device index for binding sockets. If 
>> > set
>> > the value is passed to all AF_INET/AF_INET6 sockets when they are
>> > created.
>> > 
>> > The task setting is passed parent to child on fork, but can be set 
>> > or
>> > changed after task creation using prctl (if task has CAP_NET_ADMIN
>> > permissions). The setting for a socket can be retrieved using 
>> > prctl().
>> > This option allows an administrator to restrict a task to only 
>> > send/receive
>> > packets through the specified device. In the case of VRF devices 
>> > this
>> > option restricts tasks to a specific VRF.
>> > 
>> > Correlation of the device index to a specific VRF, ie.,
>> >    ifindex --> VRF device --> VRF id
>> > is left to userspace.
>> 
>> Nacked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
>> 
>> Because it is broken by design.  Your routing device is only safe for
>> programs that know it's limitations it is not appropriate for general
>> applications.
>> 
>> Since you don't even seen to know it's limitations I think this is a
>> bad path to walk down.
>
> Can you please elaborate about the broken by design?
>
> Different operating systems are already using this approach with good
> success. I read your other mail regarding isolation of different VRFs
> and I agree that all code which persists state depending solely on the
> IP address is affected by this and this must be dealt with and fixed
> (actually, there aren't too many).

The size of struct net would tend to disagree with the assertion that
there are not too many.

> But I wouldn't call that broken by design. This stuff will get fixed
> like e.g. cross-talk between fragmentation queues, icmp rate limiters
> etc, which could already happen in the past.
>
> What is your opinion on the fundamental approach only from a user
> perspective? Do you think that is broken, too?

I think promising something to userspace that a design can not deliver
is a fundamental problem.

Eric