linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/26] Add a secctx_to_secid() LSM hook to go along with the existing

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:	Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:08:16 -0800 (PST)
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
	casey@...aufler-ca.com, Trond.Myklebust@...app.com,
	npiggin@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/26] Add a secctx_to_secid() LSM hook to go along with the existing


--- Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com> wrote:

> On Tuesday 15 January 2008 8:05:27 pm James Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, David Howells wrote:
> > > secid_to_secctx() LSM hook.  This patch also includes the SELinux
> > > implementation for this hook.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
> > > Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
> >
> > This is useful in its own right, and I would like to push it upstream for
> > 2.6.24 unless there are any objections.
> 
> Isn't it a bit late in 2.6.24 to add new functionality, especially when there
> 
> isn't an in-tree user for it in 2.6.24?
> 
> You are right, there are several users of this function currently under 
> development but I'm pretty sure all of them are targeting 2.6.25 or greater. 
> 
> With that in mind, I think the prudent thing to is to wait and push this 
> upstream for 2.6.25.

I concur with Paul. I had to delete the message I was composing because
it said exactly the same thing.

I do think that we need to put some thought into what a secid
really is and what a secctx ought to look like what with multiple
user cropping up for them. To date audit is the only out-of-LSM
user of the secctx, and assumes it's a printable text string, but
if cacheing is going to be using it as well we're approaching the
secctx being a "general" interface, and hence a part of the LSM
proper. Probably makes sense to include something in the LSM
documentation. With luck, someone who spells better than I will
beat me to it, but such an update is on my todo list.




Casey Schaufler
casey@...aufler-ca.com
--
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/