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]

Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:45:02 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Łukasz Stelmach <l.stelmach@...sung.com>
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

Am 30.04.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Łukasz Stelmach:
> 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.

Sorry, I thought you mean the races while collecting metadata in userspace...

> 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?

Please see https://lwn.net/Articles/641278/

Thanks,
//richard


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)