Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:29:12 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: daw-news@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Security: Add prctl(PR_{GET,SET}_NETWORK) interface.
Message-ID: <20091219122912.780f63de@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <hgifbt$mme$1@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu>
References: <20091218030056.GC3047@heat>
	<20091218094955.32938765@nehalam>
	<hgifbt$mme$1@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 978
Lines: 21

O> I don't know of any reasonable way to introduce firewall rules
> that apply only to a specific process; nor do I know of any way
> for a user-level (non-root) process to specify and apply such
> rules.  So it doesn't sound to me like the firewalling infrastructure
> meets the requirements for which this patch was introduced.  Or did
> I miss something?

You can push BPF style filters onto sockets in Linux. They are not just
tied to some arbitary capture device. A process imposing its own isn't
too hard - imposing them on another process (or user) gets more complex
but cotnainers can probably do what is needed nowdays.

(We also have other weirdness like AX.25 where the mac address depends on
the user id of course)

Alan
--
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/