From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: using per-socket ipsec policies as user Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:25:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20121111.012551.425806345331543715.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20121111062155.GB28043@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, steffen.klassert@secunet.com To: hannes@stressinduktion.org Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:48908 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751141Ab2KKGZz (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 01:25:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20121111062155.GB28043@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 07:21:55 +0100 > in commit 6fc0b4a xfrm policy loading via setsockopt was restricted > to CAP_NET_ADMIN. I wondered if the situation of the xfrm interface > got better since then or what needs to be done to remove this > restriction. It's an intentional restrction and has a lot less to do with any aspect of our implementation, but rather has more to do with what operations we wish to allows non-privileged users to do or not.