[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200908051758.39051.paul.moore@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:58:38 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, eparis@...hat.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
selinux@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] lsm: Add hooks to the TUN driver
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 10:13:50 am Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Paul Moore (paul.moore@...com):
[NOTE: my email has been out all day due to some mysterious FS issue so my
apologies for not replying sooner]
...
> The checks before and after this patch are not equivalent. Post-patch,
> one must always have CAP_NET_ADMIN to do the attach, whereas pre-patch
> you only needed those if current_cred() did not own the tun device. Is
> that intentional?
Nope, just a goof on my part; I misread the booleans and haven't fully tested
the patch yet so it slipped out, thanks for catching it. This brings up a
good point, would we rather move the TUN owner/group checks into the cap_tun_*
functions or move the capable() call back into the TUN driver? The answer
wasn't clear to me when I was looking at the code before and the uniqueness of
the TUN driver doesn't help much in this regard.
> Also as Eric said this patch needs to set the cap_ hooks. This patch
> isn't yet introducing the selinux hooks, so iiuc actually this patch should
> always oops if CONFIG_SECURITY=y.
Yep, another symptom of not enough testing as I mentioned out in the original
posting, thanks to both of you for pointing this out ... now somebody just
needs to fix Rawhide so I can actually get a KVM instance running :)
--
paul moore
linux @ hp
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists