[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 22:04:02 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
john.johansen@...onical.com
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in selinux_ip_postroute_compat
On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 15:50 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> Yep. I was just trying to see if there was a way we could avoid having to
> make it conditional on CONFIG_SECURITY, but I think this is a better approach
> than the alternatives.
>
> I'm also looking into making sure we get a sane LSM label on the per-cpu sock
> as security_sk_alloc() just allocates and initializes the LSM blob to a basic
> starting value (unlabeled_t in the case of SELinux) ... that is likely to be
> the tricky bit.
It seems previous code did the same thing in sk_prot_alloc() ?
>
> Regardless, I'm okay with us merging the patch below now to fix the panic and
> I'll supply a follow-up patch to fix the labeling once I figure out a solution
> that seems reasonable. Does that work for you? David?
>
> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
John, could you confirm this fixes the problem ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists