On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 02:14:06PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 17 September 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:30:00PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > Also, I might not want to allow the user to open a > > > > > random random raw socket, but only one on a specific downstream > > > > > port of a macvlan interface, so I can filter out the data from > > > > > that respective MAC address in an external switch. > > > > > > > > I agree. Maybe we can fix that for raw sockets, want me to > > > > add it to the list? :) > > > > > > So far, I could not find any theoretical solution how to fix this, > > > > What if socket had a LOCKBIND ioctl after which you can not bind it to > > any other device? Then someone with RAW capability can open the socket, > > bind to device and hand it to you. You can send packets but not > > switch to another device. > > Could work, though I was hoping for a solution that does not depend > on a priviledged task at run time to open the socket, as you have with > persistant tap devices or chardevs like macvtap that can have their > persissions set by udev. > > > Arnd <>< Well, we could have a char device with an ioctl that gives you back a socket, or maybe even have it give you back a socket when you open it. Will that make you happy? -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
