On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 01:27:18PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:

On 8/29/23 19:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 03:34:06PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:

quoted

On 8/11/23 00:00, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:42:11 -0400 Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

quoted

quoted

Directly into the stack? I thought VDUSE is vDPA in user space,
meaning to get to the kernel the packet has to first go thru
a virtio-net instance.

yes. is that a sufficient filter in your opinion?

Yes, the ability to create the device feels stronger than CAP_NET_RAW,
and a bit tangential to CAP_NET_ADMIN. But I don't have much practical
experience with virt so no strong opinion, perhaps it does make sense
for someone's deployment? Dunno..

I'm not sure CAP_NET_ADMIN should be required for creating the VDUSE
devices, as the device could be attached to vhost-vDPA and so not
visible to the Kernel networking stack.

However, CAP_NET_ADMIN should be required to attach the VDUSE device to
virtio-vdpa/virtio-net.

Does that make sense?

Maxime

OK. How are we going to enforce it?

Actually, it seems already enforced for all VDPA devices types.
Indeed, the VDPA_CMD_DEV_NEW Netlink command used to add the device to
the VDPA bus has the GENL_ADMIN_PERM flag set, and so require
CAT_NET_ADMIN.

Hmm good point. Pity I didn't notice earlier. Oh well there's always
the next release.

quoted

Also, we need a way for selinux to enable/disable some of these things
but not others.

Ok, I can do it in a patch on top.
Do you have a pointer where it is done for Virtio Block devices?

Maxime

It's not done yet - at the moment vduse device is always block so we
didn't need the distinction.

-- 
MST