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: <3294227.D2rod7xgQB@sifl>
Date:	Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:37:22 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	mvadkert@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet

On Monday, April 08, 2013 11:30:25 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 11:21 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 14:12 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > It seems a bit fragile to me, perhaps even hacky, but in some ways I
> > > guess it isn't anymore fragile than relying on skb->sk - as this
> > > problem demonstrates. My other concern is that adding this hook
> > > *correctly* is likely to touch a lot of files and may be a bit much so
> > > late in the 3.9 cycle, Dave, what say you?> 
> > I don't get it, 90ba9b1986b5ac4b2d18 was in 3.6, why do you care of
> > 3.9 ?
> > 
> > I am preparing a fix right now. Not a revert, thank you.
> 
> Is the following patch not good enough ?

I think it is somewhat telling that the hook you're proposing doesn't ever 
make any calls into any of the individual LSMs, it only calls back into the 
networking stack.  In my mind, this makes it an abuse of the LSM mechanism.

On Monday, April 08, 2013 11:34:11 AM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 14:26 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > I guess we'll have to wait and see then; the more I think about the new
> > hook you proposed the less enthused I am about it.
> > 
> > I'm still curious to hear what Dave has to say on this.
> 
> 90ba9b1986b5ac4b2 is 10 months old, and nobody complained until today ?

The people who use this functionality almost never use upstream kernels, they 
need to protection/certification/warm-fuzzies/etc. that come from a 
distribution kernel and a support infrastructure.  I didn't catch it because I 
use a slightly different configuration that didn't expose this bug; while I 
would like to run a full regression test every release I simply don't have the 
time to do that myself.

> This sounds like a very small issue to me, a revert is simply overkill.

It all depends on your use case.  To you, whom I assume doesn't use SELinux, 
it is indeed a trivial issue.  To someone who relies on SELinux for its 
network access controls this is a pretty significant issue.

-- 
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