From owner-freebsd-bluetooth@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 28 20:04:32 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FB4106564A; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:04:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28468FC17; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:04:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iwn33 with SMTP id 33so4924860iwn.13 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:04:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CjVO2tRbFHrReu/MWj0xlK4GQ6qD+ZBdOJi6xCcZYoA=; b=OFWxI1udhqObKVlsbK7D7Th+w7Mhb7qx8Lcwk1LUN5yPPTCN3vRx4rX8bZiyrJ5oNx lsKjIX0vLwp1Q601tirkDlnokemp0gUkjY/1t3sHc9rhugw/ZNTXZfdGT22FbE85Fsox TUp/mA6CjwCgcTmtYLMPpsqI7pF5OoH3VHc3Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ofVOa6G1EJZa5w4nXWc31HLpsqGYZmJidN9Mal5KmTSkbFw7Xr89JYA380WKhxEvT0 SiOx6sAKHIAqO+9QEUfeSMx3hyziTqafYElukc5YPHxMzhaL+y1O8zY4Kj3iXDDXZxdh OFH0fjDXCeGzf0n//gHpaEl2asWRdiMBF+tQ0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.60.205 with SMTP id wt13mr7385508icb.253.1301342670992; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:04:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.166.71 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:04:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110328195952.GA26987@freebsd.org> References: <20110328001258.GA70156@freebsd.org> <20110328101804.GA39095@freebsd.org> <20110328195952.GA26987@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:04:30 -0700 Message-ID: From: Maksim Yevmenkin To: Alexander Best Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Subject: Re: l2ping(8) and -f switch X-BeenThere: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Using Bluetooth in FreeBSD environments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:04:32 -0000 On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Alexander Best wrote: > On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Iain Hibbert wrote: >> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Alexander Best wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon Mar 28 11, Iain Hibbert wrote: >> >> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Alexander Best wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > thus i believe making the -f switch only accessable to super-users (in >> >> > > accordance with ping(8)/ping6(8)) would increase security. >> >> > >> >> > what stops the user from recompiling l2ping without this restriction? >> >> >> >> nothing. but what stops him from recompiling ping(8) or ping6(8) without the >> >> restriction? still it's there. >> > >> > AFAIK you need superuser privileges to even send ICMP_ECHO packets, thats >> > why ping is traditionally a suid program and making a new binary won't >> > help normal users.. I'm guessing that l2ping doesn't have the same >> > restrictions? >> >> Guys, >> >> first of all thanks for the patch. >> >> i think one really needs to understand what "flood" really means in >> l2ping(8). "flood" ping(8) basically floods the link with icmp echo >> requests without waiting for remote system to reply. yes, this is >> potentially dangerous and thus its reasonable to require super-user >> privileges. "flood" l2ping(8) is NOT the same. all l2ping(8) does is >> "flood" mode >> >> 1) sends l2cap echo request >> 2) waits for l2cap echo response (or timeout) >> 3) repeats >> >> in other words, there is no delay between each l2cap echo >> request-response transaction. its not really "flood". i'm not sure if >> it really worth to go all the way to restricting this. however, if >> people think that it should be restricted, i will not object. > > how about removing the term "flood" from the l2ping(2) man page, if the -f > semantics can't actually be called that way? that would be fine. l2ping(8) -h calls it -f No delay (sort of flood) and l2ping(8) man page calls it -f ``Flood'' ping, i.e., no delay between packets. it would be nice to make those consistent :) i'm not sure what the best name would be though. thanks, max