netdev - Re: [PATCH]: Add security check before flushing SAD/SPD

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eparis@...isplace.org
Cc:	jmorris@...ei.org, latten@...tin.ibm.com, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, vyekkirala@...stedCS.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Add security check before flushing SAD/SPD

From: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:39:47 -0400

> It seems reasonable to me that the check for every policy (which is
> between current->security->sid and xp->security->ctx_sid) makes sense.
> There doesn't appear to me right offhand to be anything intrinsic in the
> code which says that a flush request must flush everything or nothing.

The "intrinsic" part comes from the heritage of routing daemons and
what they expect from flush operations, these assumption live in the
ipsec daemons as well.

A daemon, routing or ipsec, is flushing the tables in order to create
an entirely "clean slate", and they very much expect the policy and
state tables to be %100 empty after the operation.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html