2 messages, 2 authors, 2012-11-16 · open the first message on its own page
From: Glauber Costa <hidden>
Date: 2012-11-16 13:55:14
On 11/16/2012 05:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
+ if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)) + return -EPERM; + return netdev_store(dev, attr, buf, len, change_tx_queue_len);
You mean ns_capable here?
From: Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
Date: 2012-11-16 14:32:35
Glauber Costa [off-list ref] writes:
On 11/16/2012 05:03 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:quoted
+ if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)) + return -EPERM; + return netdev_store(dev, attr, buf, len, change_tx_queue_len);You mean ns_capable here?
No. There I meant capable. I deliberately call capable here because I don't understand what the tx_queue_len well enough to be certain it is safe to relax that check to be just ns_capable. My get feel is that allowing an unprivileged user to be able to arbitrarily change the tx_queue_len on a networking device would be a nice way to allow queuing as many network packets as you would like with kernel memory and DOSing the machine. So since with a quick read of the code I could not convince myself it was safe to allow unprivilged users to change tx_queue_len I left it protected by capable. While at the same time I relaxed the check in netdev_store to be ns_capable. Eric