spender wrote:What percentage of your subjects with "connect disabled / bind disabled" require allow_sock_family netlink? How many with some connect/bind rules allowed require it?
-Brad
Not too much, actually. I was just overracting it.
It is important, that event those producing the log entries (apache, squid, privoxy, chronyd, sendmail, dovecot, bind...) are functioning completely well. It think some functions they use are tampering with netlink and claim unnecessary rights.
So the symptoms are only disturbing, but didn't cause dysfunction in my case.
It seems to me all daemons - being run by root or by their own user - binding to a port require it. There are some user space executables (eg. communication, some GNOME components) binding to ports during startup or while running.
I think most of these utilities use some library function tickling netlink, but end up never using it - so a denial won't do much harm.
After my initial reaction: I accept the idea, that only those programs should be granted netlink socket access, which would really need it.
The optimal solution would be to fix a library claiming netlink while called only for binding a regular ipv4 port... However the error message is not too specific about the exact reason, metioning raw, ip and netlink...
I assume this feature to be absolutely useful after all - so thanks!
Offtopic: On my systems I'm having some serious sync issues for some time now. If these persist with the recent kernel, I'll get back.
Regards:
Dw.