Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] connector/cn_proc: Add filtering to fix some bugs

[Anjali Kulkarni]

> On Mar 14, 2023, at 1:38 AM, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 05:24:41PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:15:44 -0800 Anjali Kulkarni wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/connector.h b/include/linux/connector.h
>>> index 487350bb19c3..1336a5e7dd2f 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/connector.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/connector.h
>>> @@ -96,7 +96,11 @@ void cn_del_callback(const struct cb_id *id);
>>> *
>>> * If there are no listeners for given group %-ESRCH can be returned.
>>> */
>>> -int cn_netlink_send_mult(struct cn_msg *msg, u16 len, u32 portid, u32 group, gfp_t gfp_mask);
>>> +int cn_netlink_send_mult(struct cn_msg *msg, u16 len, u32 portid,
>>> +			 u32 group, gfp_t gfp_mask,
>>> +			 int (*filter)(struct sock *dsk, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> +				 void *data),
>>> +			 void *filter_data);
>> 
>> kdoc needs to be extended
> 
> just a thought from my side. I think giving access to unprivileged users
> will require a little thought as that's potentially sensitive.
> 
> If possible I would think that the patches that don't lead to a
> behavioral change should go in completely independently and then we can
> discuss the non-root access change.

Hi Christian,

Could you take a look at v4 and let me know your thoughts, so we can start a discussion on that thread? Do we need more filtering based on user ID /other parameters for exit status? Can we allow just non-zero notification (not the exact exit status but just whether it was a 0 or a non-zero exit) be available to non-root users? 

Do other folks have any more comments/suggestions?

Thanks
Anjali