linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] secmark: make secmark object handling generic

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: <1286925270.2614.9.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:14:30 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
	selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, sds@...ho.nsa.gov, jengelh@...ozas.de,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, mr.dash.four@...glemail.com,
	pablo@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] secmark: make secmark object handling generic

On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:01 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 18:55 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 11:40 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > > Right now secmark has lots of direct selinux calls.  Use all LSM calls and
> > > > remove all SELinux specific knowledge.  The only SELinux specific knowledge
> > > > we leave is the mode.  The only point is to make sure that other LSMs at
> > > > least test this generic code before they assume it works.  (They may also
> > > > have to make changes if they do not represent labels as strings)
> > > 
> > > I'm sure you have, but I just want to make sure - you've tested this
> > > change (and the others for that matter) against the existing iptables
> > > userspace to make sure everything still works, right?
> > 
> > I did.  The only patch which needs userspace changes is the exporting of
> > secctx over netlink.  It appears the current userspace tools just
> > ignores unknown field types.  I have a patch to userspace to tell it
> > about the new field and will send it after the kernel patch goes in.
> 
> Okay, that's good.  Is the existing, i.e. unmodified, userspace still
> able set a Secmark with your patches applied?  That is the part I'm most
> concerned about right now ...

It is.  Everything about secmark is still userspace ABI compatible.
(except what I indicated)

-Eric

--
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/