Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 May 2016 15:40:49 +0200 | From | Guillaume Nault <> | Subject | Re: [Question] Should `CAP_NET_ADMIN` be needed when opening `/dev/ppp`? |
| |
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 12:35:12PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Guillaume Nault <g.nault@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? > Indeed, I overlooked the namespace aspect of the problem. PPP is netns aware, but ioctls performed on /dev/ppp file descriptors are all serialised with ppp_mutex. A user could therefore affect other PPP users by artificially creating contention on the ppp_mutex lock.
Other than that, I agree it'd make sense to test for user capabilies in the current namespace rather than in the initial one.
| |