Re: [PATCH next 02/84] ipvs: Don't use current in proc_do_defense_mode

To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next 02/84] ipvs: Don't use current in proc_do_defense_mode
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@xxxxxxxxx>, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:38:03 +0900
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:53:30PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 01:01:39PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Instead store ipvs in extra2 so that proc_do_defense_mode can easily
> >> find the ipvs that it's value is associated with.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > I am wondering if this fix should be included in v4.3 and stable.
> > Can the problem occur in practice?
> I believe a lookup in one network namespace followed by write in another
> network namespace would do it.  So I think it would take so pretty
> deliberate and more or less peculiar actions to make it happen.
> I don't know how important the update_defense_level call is or how bad
> it is if it does not run in a network namespace .

Thanks, my feeling is that this problem can be fixed via next.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>