netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet

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: <31036542.d4Dp22e6Ij@sifl>
Date:	Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:32 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	mvadkert@...hat.com, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet

On Monday, April 08, 2013 02:12:01 PM Paul Moore wrote:
> On Monday, April 08, 2013 10:47:47 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 13:40 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > Sort of a similar problem, but not really the same.  Also, arguably,
> > > there is no real associated sock/socket for a RST so orphaning the
> > > packet makes sense. In the case of a SYNACK we can, and should,
> > > associate the packet with a sock/socket.
> > 
> > What is the intent ?
> 
> We have to do a number of painful things in SELinux because we aren't
> allowed a proper security blob (void *security) in a sk_buff.  One of those
> things ...

Actually, I wonder if this problem means it is a good time to revisit the no-
security-blob-in-sk_buff decision?  The management of the blob would be hidden 
behind the LSM hooks like everything else and it would have a number of 
advantages including making problems like we are seeing here easier to fix or 
avoid entirely.  It would also make life much easier for those of working on 
LSM stuff and it would pave the way for including network access controls in 
the stacked-LSM stuff Casey is kicking around.

I'm aware of all the arguments against, but thought it would be worth bringing 
it up again, if for no other reason than I haven't heard enough shouting yet 
today :)

-- 
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