From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: multicasting netlink messages to groups > 31 from userspace Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:37:34 +0200 Message-ID: <468CF41E.4020409@trash.net> References: <1183492286.4021.21.camel@johannes.berg> <468BAADC.4030203@trash.net> <1183558702.3812.33.camel@johannes.berg> <468BAF10.6080208@trash.net> <1183559883.3812.42.camel@johannes.berg> <468BB327.5050709@trash.net> <1183561006.3812.47.camel@johannes.berg> <468BB5F8.3080908@trash.net> <1183561713.9662.5.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev , jamal , Thomas Graf , Herbert Xu To: Johannes Berg Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:64244 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755435AbXGENh6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jul 2007 09:37:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1183561713.9662.5.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 17:00 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>Not by itself probably but a user could DoS your wireless connectivity >>this way. > > > Hmm, if anything then not the connectivity but rather the MLME i.e. it > won't do roaming properly maybe. Maybe we should then have a way to say > that somebody only wants to receive messages from privileged users, that > way the MLME process wouldn't be affected. Earlier filtering makes sense, especially for userspace. The other part exceeds my wireless knowledge :) >>I'm not sure, it would probably also have to be called when userspace >>unsubscribes from a group, no? > > > No actually having that hook means I can do without multicast groups by > just publishing that "send configuration requests to pid N" where N is > either 0 (in-kernel MLME) or something else (userspace MLME); I just > didn't know the hook existed. Even better. Publishing that to userspace is going to be racy though. > Not that we shouldn't fix the multicast issues anyway though the one > from this particular thread wouldn't be too interesting right now until > somebody needs userspace to multicast; the other three patches still > should be done now before there are more generic netlink multicast > users. The genetlink stuff defintely makes sense. I'll have a closer look at your patches this weekend.