Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754402AbbKLWTM (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:19:12 -0500 Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com ([192.95.5.64]:44712 "EHLO frisell.zx2c4.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753070AbbKLWTK (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Nov 2015 17:19:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5644F6E7.4060901@gmail.com> References: <20151112083443.48785696@xeon-e3> <5644F6E7.4060901@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:19:06 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Is ndo_do_ioctl still acceptable? From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" To: Austin S Hemmelgarn Cc: Stephen Hemminger , David Miller , LKML , Netdev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1084 Lines: 20 On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: >> > On the other hand, based on what you are saying about your device, it sounds > like you are working on some kind of cryptographically secured (either > authenticated or encrypted or both) tunnel, in which case the fact that > security is easier to handle with netlink than ioctls becomes important. If > you can't ensure security of the endpoint configuration, you can't ensure > security of the tunnel itself. Could you substantiate these claims that "security is easier to handle with netlink". I've never heard this and I don't know why it'd be the case. Are you referring to the fact that the copy_to/from_user dance of ioctl opens up more potential vulnerabilities than netlink's abstracted validation? Or something else? Just confused here... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/