On Wednesday, August 08, 2012 05:00:26 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 2:54 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> By the way, once this proved to be an issue that involved
> more than just SELinux it needed to go onto the LSM list as
> well.
Yes, you're right.
> > On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 16:46 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 08, 2012 10:32:52 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 22:09 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>> +static int smack_sk_alloc_security(struct sock *sk, int ...
> >>> {
> >>> char *csp = smk_of_current();
> >>> struct socket_smack *ssp;
> >>>
> >>> + if (check && sk->sk_security)
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +
> >>>
> >>> ssp = kzalloc(sizeof(struct socket_smack), gfp_flags);
> >>> if (ssp == NULL)
> >>>
> >>> return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> In the case of Smack, when the kernel boolean is true I think the right
> >> solution is to use smack_net_ambient.
>
> I confess that my understanding of unicast is limited.
> If the intention is to send an unlabeled packet then
> indeed smack_net_ambient is the way to go.
Well, the intention isn't necessarily to send an unlabeled packet, although
that may be the end result.
In the case of a TCP reset the kernel/ambient label it is hard to argue that
the kernel/ambient label is not the correct solution; in this case there was
never an associated socket so the kernel itself needs to respond.
In the case of a TCP syn-recv and timewait ACK things are a little less clear.
Eric (Dumazet), it looks like we have a socket in tcp_v4_reqsk_send_ack() and
tcp_v4_timewait_ack(), any reason why we can't propagate the socket down to
ip_send_unicast_reply()?
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
--
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.
