From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933473AbcECNIn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 3 May 2016 09:08:43 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.220.42]:35264 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932903AbcECNIm convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 3 May 2016 09:08:42 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: [Question] Should `CAP_NET_ADMIN` be needed when opening `/dev/ppp`?
From: =?gb2312?B?zfXl4w==?= <shankerwangmiao@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1462274614.1336993.596603129.675ECADD@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 21:08:45 +0800
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
        Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Message-Id: <04054B5D-AD85-47ED-8666-21C7399BC121@gmail.com>
References: <2BEB0C68-EBC6-4A8F-A751-DE8F4A2C9D2C@gmail.com> <20160503101240.GA1304@alphalink.fr> <CAFLxGvyKMbJyfk5oiRZ6-67yHH=f+3mkY=gd3AsZC1G_o0Xhxg@mail.gmail.com> <1462274614.1336993.596603129.675ECADD@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> 在 2016年5月3日，下午7:23，Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> 写道：
> 
> On Tue, May 3, 2016, at 12:35, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Guillaume Nault <g.nault@alphalink.fr>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 09:38:57PM +0800, Wang Shanker wrote:
>>>> static int ppp_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>>>> {
>>>>      /*
>>>>       * This could (should?) be enforced by the permissions on /dev/ppp.
>>>>       */
>>>>      if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
>>>>              return -EPERM;
>>>>      return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> ```
>>>> 
>>>> I wonder why CAP_NET_ADMIN is needed here, rather than leaving it to the
>>>> permission of the device node. If there is no need, I suggest that the
>>>> CAP_NET_ADMIN check be removed.
>>>> 
>>> If this test was removed here, then it'd have to be added again in the
>>> PPPIOCNEWUNIT ioctl, at the very least, because creating a netdevice
>>> should require CAP_NET_ADMIN. Therefore that wouldn't help for your
>>> case.
>>> I don't know why the test was placed in ppp_open() in the first place,
>>> but changing it now would have side effects on user space. So I'd
>>> rather leave the code as is.
>> 
>> I think the question is whether we really require having CAP_NET_ADMIN
>> in the initial namespace and not just in the current one.
>> Is ppp not network namespace aware?
> 
> I agree, ns_capable(net->user_ns, CAP_NET_ADMIN), would probably make
> more sense.
I agree with that.
> 
> Bye,
> Hannes