[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120809.210546.819623704116134361.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: eparis@...isplace.org, paul@...l-moore.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
johnstul@...ibm.com, serge@...lyn.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, john.johansen@...onical.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: tcp: unicast_sock should not land outside of TCP
stack
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 01:56:06 +0200
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>
> commit be9f4a44e7d41cee (ipv4: tcp: remove per net tcp_sock) added a
> selinux regression, reported and bisected by John Stultz
>
> selinux_ip_postroute_compat() expect to find a valid sk->sk_security
> pointer, but this field is NULL for unicast_sock
>
> It turns out that unicast_sock are really temporary stuff to be able
> to reuse part of IP stack (ip_append_data()/ip_push_pending_frames())
>
> Fact is that frames sent by ip_send_unicast_reply() should be orphaned
> to not fool LSM.
>
> Note IPv6 never had this problem, as tcp_v6_send_response() doesnt use a
> fake socket at all. I'll probably implement tcp_v4_send_response() to
> remove these unicast_sock in linux-3.7
>
> Reported-by: John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
> Bisected-by: John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Applied.
--
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