Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] SUNRPC: add AF_VSOCK support to svc_xprt.c

From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Abbas Naderi <abiusx@google.com>,
	Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] SUNRPC: add AF_VSOCK support to svc_xprt.c
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 13:31:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171107133111.GK6809@stefanha-x1.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1509459038.4553.26.camel@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:10:38AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 14:23 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > @@ -595,6 +609,10 @@ int svc_port_is_privileged(struct sockaddr *sin)
> >  	case AF_INET6:
> >  		return ntohs(((struct sockaddr_in6 *)sin)->sin6_port)
> >  			< PROT_SOCK;
> > +	case AF_VSOCK:
> > +		return ((struct sockaddr_vm *)sin)->svm_port <=
> > +			LAST_RESERVED_PORT;
> > +
> >  	default:
> >  		return 0;
> >  	}
> 
> Does vsock even have the concept of a privileged port? I would imagine
> that root in a guest VM would carry no particular significance from an
> export security standpoint
> 
> Since you're defining a new transport here, it might be nice write the
> RFCs to avoid that distinction, if possible.
> 
> Note that RDMA just has svc_port_is_privileged always return 1.

AF_VSOCK has the same 0-1023 privileged port range as TCP.

Stefan

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]