[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <hgifbt$mme$1@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:02:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: daw@...berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Security: Add prctl(PR_{GET,SET}_NETWORK) interface.
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>Michael Stone <michael@...top.org> wrote:
>> 5. Linux today has pretty good support for controlling the creation of
>> channels involving the filesystem and involving shared daemons. It has
>> mediocre support for access control involving sysv-ipc
>mechanisms. It has
>> terrible support for access control involving non-local principals like
>> "the collection of people and programs receiving packets sent to
>> destination 18.0.0.1:80 from source 192.168.0.3:34661".
>
>The policy control for this is done today on linux via the firewalling
>infrastructure.
I don't know of any reasonable way to introduce firewall rules
that apply only to a specific process; nor do I know of any way
for a user-level (non-root) process to specify and apply such
rules. So it doesn't sound to me like the firewalling infrastructure
meets the requirements for which this patch was introduced. Or did
I miss something?
--
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