[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSOQo-6hv09QpwjNEVJPudk60uE=pz-dbuX3T+t3KYaQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 11:04:00 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
john.johansen@...onical.com,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in selinux_ip_postroute_compat
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 09:30 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>
>> In the case of a TCP syn-recv and timewait ACK things are a little less clear.
>> Eric (Dumazet), it looks like we have a socket in tcp_v4_reqsk_send_ack() and
>> tcp_v4_timewait_ack(), any reason why we can't propagate the socket down to
>> ip_send_unicast_reply()?
>>
>
> timewait 'sockets' are not full blown sockets.
>
> We need a socket (well, a good part of it) to build the IP frame and
> send it.
Yes, of course you're right.
Ideally we need a better solution here from a LSM perspective, but I
don't think this should hold up the fix as the labeling was broken
even before the postroute_compat() code broke.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists