On 4/15/2016 2:38 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote: > 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? Yes. My concern is with the security module hooks. Altering the netfilter hooks is a separate issue, and I don't have trouble with that. I also would not expect to see an LSM doing blob allocation during socket delivery, but hey, it *is* networking code, and stranger things happen all the time. > Thank you, > > Paolo > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > _______________________________________________ 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.
