netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] c/r: Add AF

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:	Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:27:20 -0700
From:	Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>
To:	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] c/r: Add AF_UNIX support (v5)

SH> That also caused you to skip a bunch of security_* calls (at the
SH> least here, at the recv equivalent, do_sock_getname, and at your
SH> bind at restore).

SH> I don't think simply inserting them here is the right thing to do,
SH> bc then as the main code changes this code is likely to fall out
SH> of sync.  So like Oren says, I think you need to do more re-use of
SH> the common code.  For the bind() case, for instance, write a
SH> common helper used by both sys_bind() and your restart bind, which
SH> does the security check and then calls sock->ops->bind().  It
SH> makes your patchset a bit more intrusive, but easier to maintain.

Does it make sense to modify kern_bind() (and friends) to make the
security_*() calls and then make sys_bind() and my restore code use
kern_bind()?  I don't know enough about the security stuff to know if
the other uses of kern_bind() in the kernel would trip up if the
checks are done there...

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: danms@...ibm.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html