From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: Disallow non-namespace aware protocols to register.
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:05:18 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a9r5tkap.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130215.134136.798843717749865061.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:41:36 -0500 (EST)")
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:25:26 -0800
>
>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
>>
>>> All in-tree ipv4 protocol implementations are now namespace
>>> aware. Therefore all the run-time checks are superfluous.
>>>
>>> Reject registry of any non-namespace aware ipv4 protocol.
>>> Eventually we'll remove prot->netns_ok and this registry
>>> time check as well.
>>
>> It has been a long time coming but this is very cool to see we have
>> finally made all of ipv4 network namespace aware.
>
> BTW, I took a look at ipv6 and unlike ipv4 there seems to be no sanity
> checks or per-protocol booleans indicating proper netns support.
>
> Is my interpretation right that ipv6 just assumes all registered
> protocols are netns aware at this point?
It looks like when the ipv6 network namespace work was done work that
check was not added to the ipv6 code :( I skimmed through the history
and I don't see any signs that anything was every done with struct
inet6_protocol. Nor when I looked at the addition of netns support to
the ipv6 udp code were there any switches flipped.
> If so that was definitely a bug, because things like l2tp have an
> ipv6 component and were not fully netns aware until very recently.
Agreed it was a bug.
I have just read through all of the handlers registered with
inet6_add_protocol in my 3.8 development tree and it appears that
everything except l2tp has network namespace support. And l2tp is fixed
in net-next so we appear to be good now.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-15 20:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-05 19:43 [PATCH] ipv4: Disallow non-namespace aware protocols to register David Miller
2013-02-15 6:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-02-15 18:41 ` David Miller
2013-02-15 20:05 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2013-02-15 20:09 ` David Miller
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=87a9r5tkap.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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