From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] c/r: Add AF_UNIX support (v6) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:59:27 -0500 Message-ID: <20090729145927.GA8377@us.ibm.com> References: <1248295301-30930-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1248295301-30930-6-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <4A6F2D62.9040005@librato.com> <87ljm8czsf.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <4A6F6B19.9010508@librato.com> <20090729133606.GB31730@us.ibm.com> <87bpn3o87o.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Oren Laadan , containers@lists.osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan To: Dan Smith Return-path: Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:57828 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751903AbZG2O7p (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:59:45 -0400 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6TEw7YL004288 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:58:07 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n6TExZNb031908 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:59:44 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n6TExTYc027375 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:59:30 -0600 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bpn3o87o.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Quoting Dan Smith (danms@us.ibm.com): > SH> At the moment you miss out on the security_socket_connect() call. > > Is that any different than the path involved when a process does a > socketpair() call? > > SH> Still your code is so customized that perhaps an explicit > SH> security_socket_connect() call in your sock_unix_join() may be the > SH> way to go... > > So, when I do the join, I really should run the check on both the > remote and local addresses, right? The join operation is not really a > connect in the sense of being one-sided... Ok well if a join is not a connect then ignore me. I'll set a block of time aside to take a closer look on your next submit. thanks, -serge