On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Rene Herman wrote: > On 08/19/2007 11:42 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > The intended [my me] semantics is If the user is not > > * the allowed user > > or > > * member of the allowed group > > or > > * cabable of CAP_NET_ADMIN > > then error out. I'm asuming > > There is a short description of the desired semantics in the link that was > posted: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/18/228 > > === > The user now is allowed to send packages if either his euid or his egid > matches the one specified via tunctl (via -u or -g respecitvely). If both > gid and uid are set via tunctl, both have to match. > === > > Paraphrasing the original code above, it's saying: > > if ((owner_is_set && does_not_match) || (group_is_set && does_not_match)) > bugger_off_unless(CAP_NET_ADMIN); > > or reverting the logic: > > if ((owner_is_unset || does_match) && (group_is_unset || does_match)) > good_to_go(); > > which probably matches the intention -- we're good to go only if the > credentials that are set also match. Maybe there are valid reasons to do it this way, but I think having it the way I described would be less confusing. -- ¤ Bill of Spammer-Rights ¤ 1. We have the right to assassinate you. 2. You have the right to be assassinated. 3. You have the right to resist, but it is futile. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
