From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Oester Subject: Re: [PATCH iptables] iptables: use flock() instead of abstract unix sockets Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:35:04 -0800 Message-ID: <20150124223503.GA22316@home> References: <1421690957-11279-1-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, lennart@poettering.net To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:47564 "EHLO mail-pa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750956AbbAXWfG (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Jan 2015 17:35:06 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id kx10so4234877pab.12 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:35:04 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1421690957-11279-1-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 07:09:17PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Abstract unix sockets cannot be used to synchronize several concurrent > instances of iptables since an unpriviledged process can create them and > prevent the legitimate iptables instance from running. > > Use flock() and /run instead as suggested by Lennart Poettering. > > Fixes: 93587a0 ("ip[6]tables: Add locking to prevent concurrent instances") > Reported-by: Lennart Poettering Looks good Pablo. Thanks for finding this Lennart. Phil