On Tue, May 3, 2016, at 12:35, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Guillaume Nault <g.na...@alphalink.fr>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 09:38:57PM +0800, Wang Shanker wrote:
> >> static int ppp_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> >> {
> >> /*
> >> * This could (should?) be enforced by the permissions on /dev/ppp.
> >> */
> >> if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
> >> return -EPERM;
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >> ```
> >>
> >> I wonder why CAP_NET_ADMIN is needed here, rather than leaving it to the
> >> permission of the device node. If there is no need, I suggest that the
> >> CAP_NET_ADMIN check be removed.
> >>
> > If this test was removed here, then it'd have to be added again in the
> > PPPIOCNEWUNIT ioctl, at the very least, because creating a netdevice
> > should require CAP_NET_ADMIN. Therefore that wouldn't help for your
> > case.
> > I don't know why the test was placed in ppp_open() in the first place,
> > but changing it now would have side effects on user space. So I'd
> > rather leave the code as is.
>
> I think the question is whether we really require having CAP_NET_ADMIN
> in the initial namespace and not just in the current one.
> Is ppp not network namespace aware?
I agree, ns_capable(net->user_ns, CAP_NET_ADMIN), would probably make
more sense.
Bye,
Hannes
