lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] net: Remove a noisy printk
    On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Patrick McHardy wrote:

    > Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote:
    > > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
    > >
    > > > > In a >normal< system one usually does not use raw sockets. So if a root
    > > > > process do use raw socket, at least netfilter sends a notification and
    > > > > there's a chance that someone take notice it by checking the kernel
    > > > > logs.
    > > > > [...]
    > > > > But should we remove them due to nuisances on >test< systems?
    > > > >
    > > > > Rather make it a kernel compile option but do not remove.
    > > > This warning is in the conntrack calling code. Iff you play with
    > > > raw sockets and do something wrong, the generic network code
    > > > should barf IMHO, not nf_conntrack, and not [nf_conntrack_ipv4 only].
    > >
    > > It is not about doing something wrong at using raw sockets - it's about
    > > using raw sockets.
    > >
    > > I'm not quite convinced the generic network code should warn about raw
    > > sockets. I believe it belongs to the security-related subsystems - netfilter
    > > and (or) the security frameworks. [But as netfilter is much more widely
    > > used, the 'or' is just theoretical.)
    >
    > I agree that it doesn't belong to the generic networking code.
    > But the way its handled in netfilter is far from perfect as well.
    > Currently multiple modules will spam the ringbuffer repeatedly,
    > but offer no possibility to change anything in the behaviour of
    > how these packets are treated. Unfortunately we can't handle this
    > in the ruleset (which is exactly the reason why we're spamming
    > the ringbuffer), so how about we add a module option controlling
    > how to treat those packets and remove the printk?

    How about this: let the printk be removed from conntrack and the mangle
    table but put (back) into the filter table with a module option, which
    controls the behaviour (drop/accept & log/nolog)?

    Best regards,
    Jozsef
    -
    E-mail : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlec@mail.kfki.hu
    PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
    Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
    H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-12-15 14:27    [W:0.024 / U:60.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site