[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5777B5CD-38BD-48D4-A4E5-A4880B30474E@collax.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:18:43 +0100
From: Tilman Baumann <tilman.baumann@...lax.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SMACK netfilter smacklabel socket match
Am 11.12.2008 um 01:03 schrieb Casey Schaufler:
>
>>
>> I just tried this out. But one thing makes me wonder if I had
>> understood what it should do.
>> The syntax for /smack/slhost is IP[/MASK] LABEL.
>> When I give one host (in my case generously 0.0.0.0/0 *g*) a label
>> what is the significance of the @ label?
>> First I used the _ label here which had the effect that everything
>> seems to work but labeled processes still produced labeled packet
>> which got slaughtered in different ways and degrees over the
>> internet.
>> If I gave my slhost the @ label my machine was offline and did not
>> even get pings out locally.
>>
>> I get the feeling I did not understand the concept yet.
>> Sorry but if you don't mind giving me a hint...
>>
>
> OK, Paul and I knocked our heads together until we got the behavior
> and
> interfaces ironed out if not to our mutual satisfaction at least to a
> workable level. Paul's next tree:
>
> % git clone git://git.infradead.org/users/pcmoore/lblnet-2.6_next
Nice, I'm eager to try that out.
>
>
> has the current version. There are a couple interesting things going
> on.
>
> - /smack/nltype is gone. It never lived up to its promise and is no
> longer required to determine the labeling scheme.
> - /smack/netlabel replaces the earlier /smack/slhost because it
> better
> describes what it gets used for.
> - The "@" label (pronounced "web") has been added to the list of
> special
> labels. A packet with the web label will get delivered anywhere. A
> network address specified to have the web label can be written
> to by
> any process. Processes can not have the web label.
> - An incoming packet from an address in the netlabel list that has
> a CIPSO
> label attached will still use the label from the CIPSO packet.
> - An unlabeled packet coming from an address in the netlabel list
> will be
> given the label associated with that address.
> - A process that wants to send a packet to an address on the list
> needs
> write access to the label associated with that address. The
> packet will
> be sent unlabeled if it is allowed.
>
>
I guess the question will be, can the /smack/netlabel network also be
0.0.0.0/0?
I know, that's not how it was meant to be used, but that's what would
solve my problems with outgoing labeled packets.
However, I will try this out...
Thanks
Regards
Tilman
--
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