netdev - Re: [RFC 0/9] snet: Security for NETwork syscalls

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:	Sun, 03 Jan 2010 11:57:52 -0500
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Samir Bellabes <sam@...ack.fr>
Cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/9] snet: Security for NETwork syscalls

Hi Samir,

This fills in a gap i always thought was missing from LSM's 
boolean verdict policies. So good effort.

1)I would love to see the send/recvmsg interface complete (seems
missing).
2) If you can provide an async scheme which allows re-injection of
policy verdicts in addition to the sync interface, i think that would be
more valuable. I can see many apps which collect multiple states before
making a policy decision on multiple messages (example a multipart
message). Is SNET_VERDICT_PENDING intended for this?

A small glitch i noticed; you have defines in patches 8 and 9 which are
needed by patches 6 and 7. I think the general idea should be to compile
after adding each patch. So you may need to move some defines in earlier
patches.

cheers,
jamal

--
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