netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/6] Security: define security_sk

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: <4E41DDEB.9040904@windriver.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:24:59 +0800
From:	Rongqing Li <rongqing.li@...driver.com>
To:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Security: define security_sk_getsecid.

On 08/10/2011 08:57 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 5:43 PM, Rongqing Li wrote:
>> On 08/10/2011 12:13 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2011 12:28 AM, rongqing.li@...driver.com wrote:
>>>> From: Roy.Li<rongqing.li@...driver.com>
>>>>
>>>> Define security_sk_getsecid to get the security id of a sock.
>>>
>>> Why are you requesting the secid when you're just going to
>>> use it to get the secctx? Why not ask for that directly?
>>> Is there ever a case where you only want the secid?
>>>
>> Hi:
>>
>> As I know, we have not method to get secctx directly.
>
> You are defining the method! Ask for what you want!
>
> The whole notion of secids is a holdover from the bad old
> days when SELinux was a user space based enforcement mechanism.
> The audit system was implemented when SELinux was the lone LSM
> and unfortunately and unnecessarily propagated the use of secids.
> If an object has a secid it must also have a secctx. The
> interfaces that use secids could just as well use the secctx.
> It is wasteful to create a new interface that fetches a secid
> just to turn around and ask for the secctx in all cases.
>

Do you means I should write a method like below
security_sk_getsecctx(struct sock *sk, char *secctx, int *len)?

But secctx only is used to user. secid is used to source code to
compute and compare the access permission.

And I do not see the same method like
security_task_getsecctx(). but security_task_getsecid() has been
implemented in kernel source code.

-Roy


>> On the most of time, we get secctx like this.
>>
>> The below comes from kernel/auditsc.c
>>
>> void audit_log_task_context(struct audit_buffer *ab)
>> {
>>          char *ctx = NULL;
>>          unsigned len;
>>          int error;
>>          u32 sid;
>>
>>          security_task_getsecid(current,&sid);
>>          if (!sid)
>>                  return;
>>
>>          error = security_secid_to_secctx(sid,&ctx,&len);
>>          if (error) {
>>                  if (error != -EINVAL)
>>                          goto error_path;
>>                  return;
>>          }
>>
>>          audit_log_format(ab, " subj=%s", ctx);
>>          security_release_secctx(ctx, len);
>>          return;
>>
>> error_path:
>>          audit_panic("error in audit_log_task_context");
>>          return;
>> }
>>
>>
>> -Roy
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Roy.Li<rongqing.li@...driver.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/linux/security.h |    6 ++++++
>>>>    security/security.c      |    6 ++++++
>>>>    2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
>>>> index ebd2a53..739ac39 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/security.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
>>>> @@ -2560,6 +2560,7 @@ int security_sk_alloc(struct sock *sk, int family, gfp_t priority);
>>>>    void security_sk_free(struct sock *sk);
>>>>    void security_sk_clone(const struct sock *sk, struct sock *newsk);
>>>>    void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi *fl);
>>>> +void security_sk_getsecid(struct sock *sk, u32 *secid);
>>>>    void security_req_classify_flow(const struct request_sock *req, struct flowi *fl);
>>>>    void security_sock_graft(struct sock*sk, struct socket *parent);
>>>>    int security_inet_conn_request(struct sock *sk,
>>>> @@ -2701,6 +2702,11 @@ static inline void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi *fl)
>>>>    {
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> +static inline void security_sk_getsecid(struct sock *sk, u32 *secid)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    *secid = 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    static inline void security_req_classify_flow(const struct request_sock *req, struct flowi *fl)
>>>>    {
>>>>    }
>>>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>>>> index 0e4fccf..b0e0825 100644
>>>> --- a/security/security.c
>>>> +++ b/security/security.c
>>>> @@ -1104,6 +1104,12 @@ void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi *fl)
>>>>    }
>>>>    EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_classify_flow);
>>>>
>>>> +void security_sk_getsecid(struct sock *sk, u32 *secid)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    security_ops->sk_getsecid(sk, secid);
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_getsecid);
>>>> +
>>>>    void security_req_classify_flow(const struct request_sock *req, struct flowi *fl)
>>>>    {
>>>>        security_ops->req_classify_flow(req, fl);
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Best Reagrds,
Roy | RongQing Li
--
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