Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:08:44 -0700 From: Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com> To: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-bluetooth@freebsd.org Subject: Re: l2ping(8) and -f switch Message-ID: <AANLkTinNLusnf1rC0KZwtDBeFC%2Bn0p5JKg%2BnMu-E7hyk@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110328225208.GA51932@freebsd.org> References: <20110328101804.GA39095@freebsd.org> <alpine.NEB.2.00.1103281452520.27263@galant.ukfsn.org> <AANLkTikLj7QumdtPcB=wGBdyxOyHBusCzUbrtXVC%2BYt1@mail.gmail.com> <20110328195952.GA26987@freebsd.org> <AANLkTin_%2B8dxE8Go1Bk1vdFg2-bUZ-fn3OHX1RTRmfKa@mail.gmail.com> <20110328203413.GB26987@freebsd.org> <20110328213746.GA42088@freebsd.org> <AANLkTi=QagnGN3cADEcXTW-j3G_pDu3KCUY09uN_KTzV@mail.gmail.com> <20110328215503.GA43845@freebsd.org> <AANLkTi=SZLH72oqcjERP9u2hZHTNAtm5-LghSKUYqG%2BB@mail.gmail.com> <20110328225208.GA51932@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> 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 <arundel@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >> > > On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: >> >> >> > >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Iain Hibbert <plunky@rya-online.net> 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. > > sorry, but i don't own a src commit bit. however i think the following patch > should be fine. i've also eliminated a few var = NULL, since they're all being > initialised properly and unconditionally at some point. also the defenitions > didn't apply to style(9). plus i've converted all the atoi() calls to strtol() > calls. committed, thanks! max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinNLusnf1rC0KZwtDBeFC%2Bn0p5JKg%2BnMu-E7hyk>