netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] tun: fix LSM/SELinux labeling of tun/tap devices

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: <2030873.8I84M3f4cr@sifl>
Date:	Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:21:44 -0500
From:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	SE-Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>, jasowang@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] tun: fix LSM/SELinux labeling of tun/tap devices

On Monday, December 10, 2012 01:42:12 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> Let me abstract a little here Paul.  Lets say user A starts an
> unclassified process and a top secret process.  SELinux policy darn
> well better be able to enforce that they can not attach to the same
> tun.
> 
> Am I missing something here?

Relax, all the SELinux enforced separation still exists, and works.  We're 
just fixing the LSM/SELinux stuff that was broken with the multiqueue addition 
and adding a new SELinux permission to control access to the new queue 
command.

What we are currently discussing is DAC only.  While Michael have different 
opinions on how to solve the DAC issues, we agree that SELinux works 
correctly.

-- 
paul moore
security and virtualization @ redhat

--
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