linux-kernel - Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review

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]

Message-Id: <1187793138.1451.349.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:32:18 -0400
From:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To:	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review

On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 16:29 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 22/08/07, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >
> > > Oops, never mind - tail still follows secmark, so that shouldn't matter.
> > > So I'm not sure why we are getting a bad value for secmark here - should
> > > be initialized to zero and never modified unless there is an iptables
> > > secmark rule.
> >
> > Michal, do you see this in current git?
> 
> No, I do not see this problem in 2.6.23. I had similar problem last
> month, but it is fixed now.
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/12/362

The difference being that there the denials were against unlabeled_t
(the expected default in the presence of no iptables SECMARK rules, and
allowed by current policies), while the denials against 2.6.20.17 were
against kernel_t.  Which shouldn't ever happen unless you have an
iptables SECMARK rule that assigns that value to a packet.  So this is a
different issue.  BTW, the fact that it is showing up as kernel_t means
that skb->secmark == SECINITSID_KERNEL == 1, FWIW.  Whereas it should be
zero in the absence of iptables rules that set it.

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency

-
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/