Re: [PATCH] tuntap: fix ambigious multiqueue API

[Paul Moore]

On Friday, December 14, 2012 05:53:30 PM Jason Wang wrote:
> The current multiqueue API is ambigious which may confuse both user and LSM
> to do things correctly:
> 
> - Both TUNSETIFF and TUNSETQUEUE could be used to create the queues of a
> tuntap device.
> - TUNSETQUEUE were used to disable and enable a specific queue of the
>   device. But since the state of tuntap were completely removed from the
> queue, it could be used to attach to another device (there's no such kind
> of requirement currently, and it needs new kind of LSM policy.
> - TUNSETQUEUE could be used to attach to a persistent device without any
>   queues. This kind of attching bypass the necessary checking during
> TUNSETIFF and may lead unexpected result.
> 
> So this patch tries to make a cleaner and simpler API by:
> 
> - Only allow TUNSETIFF to create queues.
> - TUNSETQUEUE could be only used to disable and enabled the queues of a
> device, and the state of the tuntap device were not detachd from the queues
> when it was disabled, so TUNSETQUEUE could be only used after TUNSETIFF and
> with the same device.
> 
> This is done by introducing a list which keeps track of all queues which
> were disabled. The queue would be moved between this list and tfiles[]
> array when it was enabled/disabled. A pointer of the tun_struct were also
> introdued to track the device it belongs to when it was disabled.
> 
> After the change, the isolation between management and application could be
> done through: TUNSETIFF were only called by management software and
> TUNSETQUEUE were only called by application.For LSM/SELinux, the things
> left is to do proper check during tun_set_queue() if needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>

Let me digest these changes and I'll respin the LSM/SELinux multiqueue fixes 
and send them back out for re-discussion/review.

-- 
paul moore
security and virtualization @ redhat

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/