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
next prev parent 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).