[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080917151143.debb6adc.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:11:43 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: paul.moore@...com, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, jmorris@...ei.org,
rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug #11500] /proc/net bug related to selinux
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:39:45 -0700
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com> writes:
>
> > We suck? Maybe, but some explanation about why we suck in this
> > particular case would be helpful as far as I'm concerned. I don't
> > really care about identifying the guilty suckees, I'm more interested
> > in finding out what happened to cause us to suck because of this.
>
> Agreed. I believe we carefully gave selinux the same paths for /proc/net
> that it had before so I don't know why this affects user space.
>
> I know we had some selinux review when we made the change.
>
> Eric
It's back up-thread somewhere. umm...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:05:26 -0400
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> However, the most likely explanation is simply that when /proc/net was
> changed from being a directory to being a symlink to /proc/self/net,
> that introduced an additional permission check on accesses
> of /proc/net/<whatever>, namely the read check on the symlink itself.
> And since that check wasn't happening on /proc/net accesses with older
> kernels, older policies didn't allow it.
--
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