Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 5/9] psp: add unprivileged version of psp_device_get_locked

[Daniel Zahka <daniel.zahka@gmail.com>]

On 3/4/26 1:01 PM, Daniel Zahka wrote:
>
>
> On 3/4/26 12:42 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
>> _______________________________________
>> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 8:25 AM
>> To: Wei Wang; netdev@vger.kernel.org; kuba@kernel.org; 
>> daniel.zahka@gmail.com; Willem de Bruijn; David Wei; Andrew Lunn; 
>> David S. Miller; Eric Dumazet
>> Cc: Wei Wang
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 5/9] psp: add unprivileged version of 
>> psp_device_get_locked
>>
>>> Can you give a concise reason for which operations to allow from
>>> another netns and which to deny. Also as forward looking heuristic for
>>> when new operations may be added.
>>>
>>> Btw minor typo in first sentence of next commit: associcate.
>> Thanks for the comment!
>> Yes. "unprivileged" means access from the main netns as well as any 
>> netns with an associated device and is used for commands like 
>> dev-dump, dev-get, rx-assoc, tx-assoc, which are user-controlled 
>> functionalities of the psd.
>> While "privileged" means access only from the main netns and is used 
>> for dev-add/delete/change-ntf, key-rotate. This is more like the 
>> admin-types of operations of the psd.
>> I will update the commit msg in the next version to make it more clear.
>
> I think Willem's question is more: what criteria did you use to decide 
> if each operation is privileged or not? I think one reasonable answer 
> would be: operations that have side effects on the psp dev's state, 
> e.g. key rotations or changing the enabled psp versions.

well, now that I sent that I realize that criteria is so broad to 
include things like rx-assoc and tx-assoc, which obviously need to be 
unprivileged :(