From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 14 13:29:43 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4F416A409; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:29:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from frank@pinky.sax.de) Received: from pinky.frank-behrens.de (pinky.frank-behrens.de [82.139.199.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB2213C48C; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:29:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from frank@pinky.sax.de) Received: from [192.168.20.32] (sun.behrens [192.168.20.32]) by pinky.frank-behrens.de (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2EDTfuJ089208; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:29:41 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from frank@pinky.sax.de) Message-Id: <200703141329.l2EDTfuJ089208@pinky.frank-behrens.de> From: "Frank Behrens" To: "Bruce M. Simpson" Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:29:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <45F7F405.4040607@FreeBSD.org> References: <200703141213.l2ECDntN087975@pinky.frank-behrens.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.31, DE v4.31 R1) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tap(4) should go UP if opened X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:29:44 -0000 Bruce, many thanks for your fast response. Bruce M. Simpson wrote on 14 Mar 2007 13:09: > The conditional in the second patch is a no-op as the open will be > forbidden if the user did not have privilege to open the tap. Bringing No. A process running with root rights can always open the tap. > the interface up by default potentially violates POLA, so this should > not happen by default. Ok, I see that the behaviour changes. I wonder who used the "tap user open" sysctl, when additional root rights are necessary to bring the interface UP? I can't imagine a setup where this could be used, somebody else? > Please try the attached patch, which puts this behaviour under a sysctl. Fine! This should work without problems. I agree with this solution, sounds good. I'll test it and report the result. Regards and thanks for your support, Frank -- Frank Behrens, Osterwieck, Germany PGP-key 0x5B7C47ED on public servers available.