On Monday, April 08, 2013 02:32:00 PM Paul Moore wrote: > On Monday, April 08, 2013 02:12:01 PM Paul Moore wrote: > > On Monday, April 08, 2013 10:47:47 AM Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 13:40 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > Sort of a similar problem, but not really the same. Also, arguably, > > > > there is no real associated sock/socket for a RST so orphaning the > > > > packet makes sense. In the case of a SYNACK we can, and should, > > > > associate the packet with a sock/socket. > > > > > > What is the intent ? > > > > We have to do a number of painful things in SELinux because we aren't > > allowed a proper security blob (void *security) in a sk_buff. One of > > those things ... > > Actually, I wonder if this problem means it is a good time to revisit the > no- security-blob-in-sk_buff decision? The management of the blob would be > hidden behind the LSM hooks like everything else and it would have a number > of advantages including making problems like we are seeing here easier to > fix or avoid entirely. It would also make life much easier for those of > working on LSM stuff and it would pave the way for including network access > controls in the stacked-LSM stuff Casey is kicking around. No comment, or am I just too anxious? -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat -- 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.
