Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:17:34 +0900 (KST)
Message-Id: <20180718.131734.1797450417729100374.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     tyhicks@canonical.com
Cc:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, tj@kernel.org,
        stephen@networkplumber.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
        ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/7] Make /sys/class/net per net namespace
 objects belong to container
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <1531497949-1766-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com>
References: <1531497949-1766-1-git-send-email-tyhicks@canonical.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 16:05:42 +0000

> I'm reviving this patch set because we would like this feature for
> system containers. One specific use case that we have is that libvirt is
> unable to configure its bridge device inside of a system container due
> to the bridge files in /sys/class/net/ being owned by init root instead
> of container root. The last two patches in this set are patches that
> I've added to Dmitry's original set to allow such configuration of the
> bridge device.
> 
> Eric had previously provided feedback that he didn't favor these changes
> affecting all layers of the stack and that most of the changes could
> remain local to drivers/base/core.c. That feedback is certainly sensible
> but I wanted to send out v2 of the patch set without making that large
> of a change since quite a bit of time has passed and the bridge changes
> in the last patch of this set shows that not all of the changes will be
> local to drivers/base/core.c. I'm happy to make the changes if the
> original request still stands.
> 
> I've verified that all of the bridge related files affected by patch 7
> have proper access control checks for CAP_NET_ADMIN inside of the
> user namespace. I have *not* yet verified that all of the network
> device related sysfs files affected by patch 5 have proper access
> control checks. I was working under the assumption that those code paths
> already were verified when the first iteration of the patches were sent
> out.

Ok, I can't let this series rot forever, so I'll apply it to net-next.

Thank you.