On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 08:34:20AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 09:32:36AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > First, it interferes badly with my RDMA netlink series posted here in > > previous cycle and I'm expecting to see it in, so I can move forward > > with RDMAtool implementation. > > I'm sure we can fix a few conflicts... It is more than a couple of conflicts, the implementation will be slightly different. Let's wait till Doug creates for-next with RDMA netlink patches, because I assume that 2 out of 3 patches will be completely different. > > > Second, from brief review, it is unclear to me, how do you protect > > autoload caused by regular user who sends netlink message to ib_core. > > You don't, that isn't how kernel auto loading works. Any user can > attempt to create any kind of socket and the core kernel code will > load the correct module to support that socket. That is the standard > way kernel autoloading works, particularly for net families. Ok, I'll take a look on it. > > > Third, it is ib_core who should autoload modules by default, and not some > > random daemon in user space. > > Kernel autoloading of userspace facing kernel services is always > triggered by a user process attempting to use the service, so this > comment makes no sense to me. My concern that "regular" user will trigger "admin" operation without any checks. > > Jason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
