On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 14:30 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 14:25 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 10:45 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Thursday 13 December 2007 9:12:08 am Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 15:18 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > Assuming labeled networking is enabled, a forwarded packet would > > > > > hit four checks: > > > > > > > > > > # inbound checks > > > > > allow netif_t peer_t:peer ingress; > > > > > allow netnode_t peer_t:peer ingress; > > > > > # outbound checks > > > > > allow netif_t peer_t:peer egress; > > > > > allow netnode_t peer_t:peer egress; > > > > > > > > This helps. But this seems to be for the old networking, how does it > > > > work with the secmark stuff? > > > > > > It doesn't work with the SECMARK stuff, or rather it works in parallel > > > with the SECMARK stuff. We've debated integrating the peer labeling > > > protocols (labeled IPsec, NetLabel) with the SECMARK mechanism many > > > times but in the end we always end up deciding it doesn't make sense. > > > > So, with compat_net off, you'd still need the above policy, not the > > packet type against the peer type?, e.g., not this: > > > > allow ssh_client_packet_t peer_t:peer egress; > > Correct, not that. secmark remains a separate and orthogonal mechanism, > with permission checks against the packet class (not the peer class), > and the secmark label is only ever used for its checks. The thing that confuses me is that I thought secmark was supposed to replace netif/node for IP traffic. So using the node/netif labels just seems wrong to me. -- Chris PeBenito Tresys Technology, LLC (410) 290-1411 x150 -- 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.
