Re: [PATCH rfc 1/4] net-timestamp: pull headers for SOCK_STREAM
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2014-11-25 19:54:37
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:52:00 -0500
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:42 PM, David Miller [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:58:03 -0500 What's the harm in exposing the headers? Either it's harmful, and therefore doing so for UDP is bad too, or it's harmless andHeaders may expose information not available otherwise. I don't immediately see critical problems, but that does not mean that they might not lurk there. We so far avoid exposing the sequence number, though keeping it hidden is more about third parties. More in general, unprivileged processes may start requesting timestamps only to learn tcp state that they should either get from tcpinfo or cannot currently get at all, likely for good reason. A far-fetched example is identifying admin iptables tos mangling rules by reading the tos bits at the driver layer. At least on my machine, iptables -L is privileged.quoted
we should probably leave it alone to not risk breaking anyone.That's fair. I sent it for rfc first for that reason. I won't resubmit unless more serious concerns are raised.
I just worry about the potential breakage. Your concerns are valid... I honestly don't know what we should do here. Both choices have merit.