From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] c/r: Add AF_UNIX support (v5) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:27:20 -0700 Message-ID: <87y6qzou07.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1246994776-1882-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1246994776-1882-2-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <4A543D82.5080408@cs.columbia.edu> <20090708140152.GC10787@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]:33464 "EHLO mail.danplanet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753481AbZGHT1X (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2009 15:27:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090708140152.GC10787@us.ibm.com> (Serge E. Hallyn's message of "Wed\, 8 Jul 2009 09\:01\:52 -0500") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: SH> That also caused you to skip a bunch of security_* calls (at the SH> least here, at the recv equivalent, do_sock_getname, and at your SH> bind at restore). SH> I don't think simply inserting them here is the right thing to do, SH> bc then as the main code changes this code is likely to fall out SH> of sync. So like Oren says, I think you need to do more re-use of SH> the common code. For the bind() case, for instance, write a SH> common helper used by both sys_bind() and your restart bind, which SH> does the security check and then calls sock->ops->bind(). It SH> makes your patchset a bit more intrusive, but easier to maintain. Does it make sense to modify kern_bind() (and friends) to make the security_*() calls and then make sys_bind() and my restore code use kern_bind()? I don't know enough about the security stuff to know if the other uses of kern_bind() in the kernel would trip up if the checks are done there... -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms@us.ibm.com