linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] SELinux patches for v4.17

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: <CA+55aFxo4Z3S7qG66esSL_qxg5jwzcFgZpYR0gRpto4Z_yghTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Apr 2018 10:03:56 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Richard Haines <richard_c_haines@...nternet.com>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SELinux patches for v4.17

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Richard Haines
<richard_c_haines@...nternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> So please check my resolution, but also somebody should tell me
>> "Linus, you're a cretin, sctp_connect() doesn't want that
>> security_sctp_bind_connect() at all because it was already done by
>> XYZ"
>
> sctp_connect() or __sctp_connect() do not need to call
> security_sctp_bind_connect(). This is because the connect(2) call will
> handle the checks required via security_socket_connect():

Ok, thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to get.

Anyway, somebody should still verify that it all looks good in my
tree, but I don't actually expect the merge to have had any issues
even if the refactoring made it a bit more complex than most merges
are.

                      Linus