On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2017-01-17 21:34, Richard Guy Briggs wrote: >> On 2017-01-17 15:17, Paul Moore wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On 2017-01-17 08:55, Steve Grubb wrote: >> > >> On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:25:51 AM EST Richard Guy Briggs wrote: >> > >> > ... >> > >> > >> > Ones that are not so straightforward: >> > >> > - "secmark" depends on a kernel config setting, so should it always be >> > >> > present but "(none)" if that kernel feature is compiled out? >> > >> >> > >> If this is selinux related, I'd treat it the same way that we do subj >> > >> everywhere else. >> > > >> > > Ok. >> > >> > To be clear, a packet's secmark should be recorded via a dedicated >> > field, e.g. "secmark", and not use the "subj" field (it isn't a >> > subject label in the traditional sense). >> >> I think Steve was talking about if, when or where to include that field, >> not what its label is. > > In this case it is an "obj=" field, but since it is part of the LSM, > each one has its own fields. As I said above, use a "secmark" field and not the subject or object fields; packet labeling is rather complex and there is value in differentiating between secmark labels and network peer labels. -- paul moore security @ redhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
