From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: avoid owner checks on IFF_ATTACH_QUEUE
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:19:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130110141939.GA30557@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50EECB43.8020405@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:08:03PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 07:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > At the moment, we check owner when we enable queue in tun.
> > This seems redundant and will break some valid uses
> > where fd is passed around: I think TUNSETOWNER is there
> > to prevent others from attaching to a persistent device not
> > owned by them. Here the fd is already attached,
> > enabling/disabling queue is more like read/write.
>
> It also change the number of queues of the tuntap, maybe we should limit
> this.
Number of active queues? Why does it matter?
Max number of queues is already limited by SETIFF.
> Note that if management layer does not call TUNSETOWNER, the check
> is just a nop. So if management layer want to limit the behavior, it's
> its duty to do this correctly.
The point is that management limits tun to allow SETIFF from libvirt
only, then passes the fds to qemu.
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Note: this is unrelated to Stefan's bugfix.
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> > index fbd106e..78e3225 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> > @@ -1789,10 +1792,8 @@ static int tun_set_queue(struct file *file, struct ifreq *ifr)
> > tun = tfile->detached;
> > if (!tun)
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > - else if (tun_not_capable(tun))
> > - ret = -EPERM;
> > else
> > ret = tun_attach(tun, file);
> > } else if (ifr->ifr_flags & IFF_DETACH_QUEUE) {
> > tun = rcu_dereference_protected(tfile->tun,
> > lockdep_rtnl_is_held());
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-10 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-10 11:31 [PATCH] tun: avoid owner checks on IFF_ATTACH_QUEUE Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-01-10 11:55 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2013-01-10 22:38 ` David Miller
2013-01-10 14:08 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-10 14:19 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2013-01-10 14:27 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-10 14:41 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-01-10 14:47 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-10 15:10 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-01-10 15:27 ` Jason Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130110141939.GA30557@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).