On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Luis Ressel <aranea@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > For PF_UNIX, SOCK_RAW is synonymous with SOCK_DGRAM (cf. > net/unix/af_unix.c). This is a tad obscure, but libpcap uses it. > > Signed-off-by: Luis Ressel <aranea@xxxxxxxx> > Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > security/selinux/hooks.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) My only concern is what effect this will have on existing policy. Prior to this patch PF_UNIX/SOCK_RAW will result in the generic "socket" class where after this patch it will result in the "unix_dgram_socket". I believe this is the right change, but it seems like this should be wrapped by a policy capability, yes? > diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c > index 819fd6858b49..1a331fba4a3c 100644 > --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c > +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c > @@ -1275,6 +1275,7 @@ static inline u16 socket_type_to_security_class(int family, int type, int protoc > case SOCK_SEQPACKET: > return SECCLASS_UNIX_STREAM_SOCKET; > case SOCK_DGRAM: > + case SOCK_RAW: > return SECCLASS_UNIX_DGRAM_SOCKET; > } > break; > -- > 2.13.1 -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
