On 11/15/2012 11:00, Casey Schaufler wrote:
On 11/14/2012 6:30 AM, David Quigley wrote:
On 11/14/2012 09:24, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 09:04:18AM -0500, David Quigley wrote:
On 11/14/2012 08:59, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 08:50:17AM -0500, David Quigley wrote:
>>On 11/14/2012 08:45, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:32:53PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote:
>>>>Ok so if you go to http://www.selinuxproject.org/git you will
>>see a
>>>>repo for lnfs and lnfs-patchset. The instructions at
>>>>http://www.selinuxproject.org/page/Labeled_NFS give you a
better
>>>>indication on how to pull the trees. I've attached a patch for
NFS
>>>>utils which gives support for security_label/nosecurity_label
in
>>>>your /etc/exports file.
>>>
>>>Do we need an export option? Is there any reason not to make
the
>>>feature available whenever there's support available for it?
>>
>>I guess we could build it in but I figured an export option
allowed
>>someone to turn off security labeling support if they didn't
want it
>>on that export. What happens to clients when the server returns
a
>>cap that they don't support? Do they mask the bits out?
>
>Yeah, they should just ignore it.
>
>While this is still experimental it's still nice to have a way to
>turn
>this on and off at runtime so people can experiment without
having to
>have it on for everyone all the time. But
>nfsd_supported_minorversion
>should be sufficient for that.
>
>(I don't think your patches actually dealt yet with the fact that
>this
>is part of minor version 2? Another for the todo list.)
>
>--b.
If we use nfsd_supported_minorversion which I'm guessing is an
export option
That's just a variable in the code. It's controlled by
/proc/fs/nfsd/versions.
what happens if someone wants to use other 4.2
features but not labeling?
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, maybe by adding some
new
global paramater.
There's no reason this really needs to be per-export, is there?
--b.
At the moment I can't really think of a reason to have it be
per-export. I think we need a new LSM patch though to determine if
the
LSM supports labeling over NFS unless Steve can think of a better
way
to tell if the LSM supports labeling.
If the LSM has a secid_to_secctx hook it supports labeling.
Today that's SELinux and Smack. You already have support in
for SELinux, and providing Smack's review and possibly updates
is #2 on my gotta do list. On the whole, I think that, except
for the fundamental philosophical difference between label
support and xattr support, it should be a simple matter to
get support in for any LSM that has secid_to_secctx.
But I'm still working on the review.
I believe SMACK already works out of the box since we abstracted the
call to obtain labels and your implementation currently works. The call
that is needed is not secid_to_secctx but inode_getsecctx. You asked for
this because SMACK labels can span multiple xattrs. I don't think its
right to expect NFS to poke around the security structure to check if
there is a valid hook(and it isn't really possible either). Maybe we can
have an LSM hook where the LSM categorizes itself and returns a value
and if the value it returns is label based then NFS can use it.
I'll switch it over if you guys want it
done that way, I think though that this provides more flexibility.
Although anything that makes me carry around fewer patches is good
in my book.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing
list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to
majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
