From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] c/r: Add AF_UNIX support (v6) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:49:15 -0700 Message-ID: <87bpn3o87o.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1248295301-30930-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1248295301-30930-6-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <4A6F2D62.9040005@librato.com> <87ljm8czsf.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <4A6F6B19.9010508@librato.com> <20090729133606.GB31730@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Oren Laadan , containers@lists.osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Return-path: Received: from gw0.danplanet.com ([71.245.107.82]:57796 "EHLO mail.danplanet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750961AbZG2OtR (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:49:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090729133606.GB31730@us.ibm.com> (Serge E. Hallyn's message of "Wed\, 29 Jul 2009 08\:36\:06 -0500") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: SH> At the moment you miss out on the security_socket_connect() call. Is that any different than the path involved when a process does a socketpair() call? SH> Still your code is so customized that perhaps an explicit SH> security_socket_connect() call in your sock_unix_join() may be the SH> way to go... So, when I do the join, I really should run the check on both the remote and local addresses, right? The join operation is not really a connect in the sense of being one-sided... -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms@us.ibm.com