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]

Date:	Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:53:57 -0400
From:	Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	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 04:44:39 PM David Miller wrote:
> From: Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
> Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:37:22 -0400
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Without LSMs the socket reference is spurious and pointless overhead,
> therefore the only acceptable fix one which only takes the socket
> reference when there are LSMs with a need.

Well that's frustrating, but if that is the game so be it.

Eric, your patch didn't cross-post to the LSM list, do you want to post it 
there for review/merging?  I would recommend also adding a pointer to this 
thread for reference.

-- 
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