netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] sk_buff: optimize layout for GRO

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: <CAHC9VhSTputyDZMrdU0SmO0gg=P3uskT6ejJkfOwn6bFgaFB3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:51:16 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/9] sk_buff: optimize layout for GRO

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:13 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 7/25/2021 3:52 PM, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
> >> RedHat and android use SELinux and will want this. Ubuntu doesn't
> >> yet, but netfilter in in the AppArmor task list. Tizen definitely
> >> uses it with Smack. The notion that security modules are only used
> >> in fringe cases is antiquated.
> > I was not talking about LSM in general, I was referring to the
> > extended info that Paul mentioned.
> >
> > If thats indeed going to be used on every distro then skb extensions
> > are not suitable for this, it would result in extr akmalloc for every
> > skb.
>
> I am explicitly talking about the use of secmarks. All my
> references are uses of secmarks.

I'm talking about a void* which would contain LSM specific data; as I
said earlier, think of inodes.  This LSM specific data would include
the existing secmark data as well as network peer security information
which would finally (!!!) allow us to handle forwarded traffic and
enable a number of other fixes and performance improvements.

(The details are a bit beyond this discussion but it basically
revolves around us not having to investigate the import the packet
headers every time we want to determine the network peer security
attributes, we could store the resolved LSM information in the
sk_buff.security blob.)

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com