netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>
To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>,
	Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
	Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, stephen@networkplumber.org,
	w.bumiller@proxmox.com, nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dsahern@gmail.com,
	davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1 v2] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 12:13:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180207121309.46fdce62@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877erphhry.fsf@xmission.com>

On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:31:29 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Frankly.  If we are talking precedence it should be:
> fds
> netnsids
> pids

The current order is 1. pids, 2. fds, though. Not that it matters much,
see below.

> I do think it makes a lot of sense to error if someone passes in
> duplicate arguments.  AKA multiple attribute that could select for
> the same thing.   No one will do that deliberately.  It doesn't make
> sense.  So it is just a nonsense case we have to handle gracefully,
> and correctly.  With correctness being the most important as otherwise
> people might just send in nonsense to exploit bugs.

Completely agreed. Let's just start returning error if more than one of
the pid/fs/netnsid attributes is specified. I don't think this is going
to break any user. And we'll not have to care about the order.

> I agree refusing to combine multiple attributes for the same thing
> sounds the most sensible course.

Yes, please.

Thanks!

 Jiri

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-07 11:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-05 15:55 [PATCH net 0/1 v2] rtnetlink: require unique netns identifier Christian Brauner
2018-02-05 15:55 ` [PATCH net 1/1 " Christian Brauner
2018-02-05 16:28   ` David Ahern
2018-02-05 21:47   ` Kirill Tkhai
2018-02-05 23:24     ` Christian Brauner
2018-02-06 10:49       ` Kirill Tkhai
2018-02-06 12:18         ` Christian Brauner
2018-02-06 22:31       ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-02-07 11:13         ` Jiri Benc [this message]
2018-02-07  4:54   ` kbuild test robot

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=20180207121309.46fdce62@redhat.com \
    --to=jbenc@redhat.com \
    --cc=christian.brauner@canonical.com \
    --cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=w.bumiller@proxmox.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).