Re: [PATCH v2] selinux: support distinctions among all network address families

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello.

On Wed, 07/12/2016 at 08.25 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On 12/06/2016 07:13 PM, Paul Moore wrote:

[...]

> > You mentioned IGMP previously, if we have a class for ICMP, it
> > seems
> > reasonable to have one for IGMP, don't you think?  Although this
> > does
> > spiral a bit if we consider all the IPPROTO* protocols.
> 
> I thought about it, but the kernel does not provide IGMP sockets per
> se,
> unlike ICMP or SCTP sockets (i.e. ipv4/af_inet.c:inetsw_array[]
> defines
> an entry for SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_ICMP and sctp/protocol.c defines and
> registers inet_protosw entries for SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_SCTP and
> SOCK_SEQPACKET, IPPROTO_SCTP; there is no equivalent for IGMP unless
> I
> missed it).  So IGMP sockets are just raw IP sockets with a
> particular
> protocol value; they have no stream, seqpacket, or dgram semantics,
> and
> it is unclear it is worthwhile to distinguish them in policy.

I suppose distinguishing IGMP packets brings little benefit in terms of
security.

Regards,

Guido
_______________________________________________
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.




[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux