Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 22 Aug 2020 14:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20200822.140141.880909883327091452.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     kalou@tfz.net
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        adobriyan@gmail.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] net: socket: implement SO_DESCRIPTION
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAGbU3_krnjbeKnm6Zyn-tqYCHVZFBkB+oCP-UF_kVOGz=zkKFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGbU3_nRMbe8Syo3OHw6B4LXUheGiXXcLcaEQe0EAFTAB7xgng@mail.gmail.com>
        <CAGbU3_=ZywUOP1CKNQ6=P99SgX28_0iXSs81yP=vGFKv7JyMcQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <CAGbU3_krnjbeKnm6Zyn-tqYCHVZFBkB+oCP-UF_kVOGz=zkKFQ@mail.gmail.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: Pascal Bouchareine <kalou@tfz.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:53:03 -0700

> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:19 PM Pascal Bouchareine <kalou@tfz.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:59 PM Pascal Bouchareine <kalou@tfz.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Would it make sense to also make UDIAG_SHOW_NAME use sk_description?
>> > (And keep the existing change - setsockopt + show_fd_info via
>> > /proc/.../fdinfo/..)
>>
>>
>> Ah,very wrong example - to be more precise, I suppose that'd be adding
>> a couple idiag_ext for sk_description and pid if possible instead
> 
> About the pid part -
> On top of multiple pids to scan for a given socket, there's also the
> security provided by /proc - I'm not sure what inet_diag does for that
> So maybe users calling it will need to scan /proc for a long time anyway...
> 
> Or is that doable?

I'd like to kindly ask that you do more research into how this kind of
information is advertised to the user using modern interfaces, and what
kinds of permissions and checks are done for those.

You are proposing a new UAPI for the Linux kernel, and with that comes
some level of responsibility.

Thank you.