Re: [uml-devel] RE: uml_switch security fixing

["Steve Schmidtke" <steve_schmidtke@hotmail.com>]

Blaisorblade wrote:
>But an unpatched UML won't work with a newer uml_net binary (for SLIP usage
>only and only for closing the interface, I mean), right?

Correct.  I think uml_net would need to manage a database of who opened what 
to do what you suggest.

>I also looked at the versioning for uml_net, but what happens is that we 
>can
>only stop unpatched uml_net from working with newer UML for any protocol, 
>not
>anything else. So I won't change that. However, I just saw that we did it
>correctly until Version 3 of the uml_net protocol...
>I wonder what has happened after.

I'd like to know this too.  It is odd that it was only the shutdown of the 
interface that changed, it worked perfectly well before.

> > Agreed, tuntap is a compile time option, slip should be as well.
>Ok... tuntap is compile-time because of a rough check for host support.

Yes, but uml_net is suid.  I may not want my users to be able to set up slip 
devices on their own (why? I don't know, I'm just paranoid that way).

Steve Schmidtke




-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel