Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 12:32 -0400, Steve Brueckner wrote: >> In trying to segment networking into two domains I seem to have >> overlooked that name_bind doesn't get enforced for ports within the >> machine's local port range (i.e. ports assigned by the kernel). I >> suppose I could try to hack the LSM selinux_socket_bind hook to >> enforce name_bind for all ports; would that be possible? I'd rather >> not, though, since I've never ventured deeper than SELinux policy, >> and delving into the mechanism scares me. Is it possible to somehow >> implement a boolean that would toggle whether name_bind was enforced >> for all ports or just for ports outside the local port range? > > That hook is only applied for explicit bind(2) calls by applications. > auto-binding of unbound sockets by the kernel (e.g. when sending on > an unbound socket) will never hit that hook at all. You would need > to modify udp_v4_get_port and tcp_v4_get_port to check permission and > keep scanning for another available port until one is allowed. Not > likely to make much headway upstream. Darn. But thank you for the clarification. - Steve Brueckner, ATC-NY -- fedora-selinux-list mailing list fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
