From owner-freebsd-bluetooth@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 28 22:12:35 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 4AFDB106564A; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:12:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F01B68FC19; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 22:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iyj12 with SMTP id 12so5128072iyj.13 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:12:34 -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=WKA66QZ+iLGgiHpHO5wsUfE0tj5pSaEf6av7MQKgRSE=; b=XasYglMHxxM6taY/n6lwlINn8jhcHiWm0b/2wLNCg+Aquv4LarpPSrZ2PYl99YOxMG u9e5czc/XUV0m7vrC25jvrY0sNoJuPrJtQnQLCd1W2WW1GaaEc0l09lhSd+f7J0y7sUc 65VrFwRQl9a8de3nAxKQXAM70Kt6Q6CK/n5wk= 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=JykY1oeoFK00v6MkvpUR03AsgB/1pX6OM+HDWkTeYrX8/vs71u4Ce06tBjc+NWg9UK kqOURvBXLOvL2KKYUh10Xf4NHNzO2ZYO2UdeZrcG3SYjWNtdXeKW9BbMfiz+leUTpbaP C0plkidOwMDZJtrZ36NGBt0FCKYL0/E++x2bw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.55.81 with SMTP id vx17mr7872226icb.52.1301350354220; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.166.71 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:12:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110328215503.GA43845@freebsd.org> References: <20110328001258.GA70156@freebsd.org> <20110328101804.GA39095@freebsd.org> <20110328195952.GA26987@freebsd.org> <20110328203413.GB26987@freebsd.org> <20110328213746.GA42088@freebsd.org> <20110328215503.GA43845@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:12:34 -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 22:12:35 -0000 On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alexander Best wrote: > On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Alexander Best wrote: >> > On Mon Mar 28 11, Alexander Best wrote: >> >> On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> another possibility would be to allow l2ping -i 0 and say that the -f flag is >> >> an alias for that. >> >> the existing code provides exactly this behavior. perhaps just a man >> page and usage() change? > > hmmm...no actually. l2ping -i 0 is not a valid parameter, since -i has to be > greater than 0. so it's not possible to simply say "-f is an alias for -i 0", > because that implies that -i 0 should work (which it doesn't). well, don't call it an "alias" then :) call it "effectively -i 0", "no delay" or something like that :) >> > the following patch will implement this behavior. >> >> if we are going to go this route then why not just get rid of the >> "flood" variable all together? just set wait to 0 (zero) if -f was >> specified. also, we should probably use strtol(3) instead of atoi(3). > > i've thought of that. however that would mean l2ping -f -i 3 would set the > delay to 3 seconds and usually an -f switch implies "force". so i think the > current behavior of -f having a higher priority than any -i X option should be > kept. i think that this is not worthy of long discussion :) i agree that word 'flood' is not appropriate and/or confusing. all the patches provided were fine, imo. please make a decision and commit the best (in your opinion) fix. thank you max