On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 18:53 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Will be ok if we post a v2 version of this series, removing the hooks > > de-registration bits, but preserving the selinux nf-hooks and > > socket_sock_rcv_skb() on-demand/delayed registration ? Will that fit > > with the post-init read only memory usage that you are planning ? > > The work Florian and and I were talking about would be limited just to > the netfilter hooks, the LSM hooks, e.g. socket_sock_rcv_skb() and > friends, would remain as they are today. What what we discussing was > defaulting to not registering the netfilter hooks until it became > necessary due to a labeled networking configuration or the > always_check_network policy capability; the registration of the > netfilter hooks would be permanent, you could not unregister the hooks > at that point, you would need to reboot. Does that make sense? Yes, AFAIC it makes sense. I'll try to follow this route for an eventual v2. > As far as Casey's concerns, I don't think the work we are talking > about for the v2 patchset would have any effect on the socket/sock > security blobs as you really can't manage those adequately from the > netfilter hooks; you most likely will reference them and perhaps even > update the data within, but not allocate or free the blobs. Besides, > even in some weird case you were alloc/free'ing security blobs in the > netfilter hooks, we can deal with that on a per-LSM basis if/when the > full fledged stacking patches are merged; everything we are talking > about is a hidden implementation detail so changing it in the future > shouldn't be a problem. Casey, are you ok with the above? Thank you, Paolo _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
