On Wednesday 09 March 2005 19:53, Steve Schmidtke wrote: > Blaisorblade wrote: > >But an unpatched UML won't work with a newer uml_net binary (for SLIP > > usage only and only for closing the interface, I mean), right?
> Correct. I think uml_net would need to manage a database of who opened > what to do what you suggest. Not going to implement it because nobody uses SLIP for what we can see. > >I also looked at the versioning for uml_net, but what happens is that we > >can > >only stop unpatched uml_net from working with newer UML for any protocol, > >not > >anything else. So I won't change that. However, I just saw that we did it > >correctly until Version 3 of the uml_net protocol... > >I wonder what has happened after. > I'd like to know this too. It is odd that it was only the shutdown of the > interface that changed, it worked perfectly well before. > > > Agreed, tuntap is a compile time option, slip should be as well. > > > >Ok... tuntap is compile-time because of a rough check for host support. > > Yes, but uml_net is suid. I may not want my users to be able to set up > slip devices on their own (why? I don't know, I'm just paranoid that way). Correct... And this holds especially for TUN/TAP: I think that giving TUN/TAP away to everybody makes it possible for unprivileged users to send raw packets, which normally is permitted only to root. -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
