netdev - Re: [PATCH] LSM: Add security_socket_post_accept() and security_socket_post_recv

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:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp
Cc:	paul.moore@...com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: Add security_socket_post_accept() and
 security_socket_post_recv_datagram().

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:26:36 +0900

> It is too late to modify because we have already accepted the
> packet.

Then queue it up somewhere, and deliver your verdict and continue
packet processing later.

In fact, I do not like killing accept()'s like this at all.

If we tell the application, via poll() or similar, that connections
are available and no other thread can get in there to steal the
connection, we must deliver a connection to the listening socket when
it calls accept() except in very unusual circumstances (out of file
descriptors, memory allocation failure, etc.)!

I believe this idea is conceptually very broken, sorry.  The semantics
are absolutely horrible.

Put this stuff in userspace, where you say it already is.  The kernel
isn't the place to dump every cool feature you want to bring in from
userspace.
--
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