linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

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: <87k2wtokl8.fsf%l.stelmach@samsung.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:40:35 +0200
From:	Łukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@...sung.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Harald Hoyer <harald@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

It was <2015-04-30 czw 14:23>, when Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 30.04.2015 um 14:16 schrieb Łukasz Stelmach:
>> It was <2015-04-30 czw 12:40>, when Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Am 30.04.2015 um 12:19 schrieb Łukasz Stelmach:
>>>> It was <2015-04-30 czw 11:12>, when Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>>> Am 30.04.2015 um 11:05 schrieb Łukasz Stelmach:
>>>>>> Regardless, of initrd issues I feel there is a need of a local IPC
>>>>>> that is more capable than UDS. 
[...]
>>>> For example, a service can't aquire credentials of a client process that
>>>> actually sent a request (it can, but it can't trust them). The service
>>>> can't be protected by LSM on a bus that is driven by dbus-daemon. Yes,
>>>> dbus-daemon, can check client's and srevice's labels and enforce a
>>>> policy but it is going to be the daemon and not the LSM code in the
>>>> kernel.
>>>
>>> That's why I said we can think of new kernel features if they are
>>> needed.  But they current sink or swim approach of kdbus folks is also
>>> not the solution.  As I said, if dbus-daemon utilizes the kernel
>>> interface as much as possible we can think of new features.
>> 
>> What kernel interfaces do you suggest to use to solve the issues
>> I mentioned in the second paragraph: race conditions, LSM support (for
>> example)?
>
> The question is whether it makes sense to collect this kind of meta data.
> I really like Andy and Alan's idea improve AF_UNIX or revive AF_BUS.

Race conditions have nothing to do with metadata. Neither has LSM
support.

AF_UNIX with multicast support wouldn't be AF_UNIX anymore.

AF_BUS? I haven't followed the discussion back then. Why do you think it
is better than kdbus?

-- 
Łukasz Stelmach
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (473 bytes)