[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQ54LRD7k_x6tUju2kPVBEHcdgBh46_hBN8btG0vhfy_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 17:41:46 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Aviad Yehezkel <aviadye@...lnaox.com>, Aviv Heller <avivh@...lanox.com>,
Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Guy Shapiro <guysh@...lanox.com>, Ilan Tayari <ilant@...lanox.com>,
Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, Raed Salem <raeds@...lanox.com>, Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>, Yossi Kuperman <yossiku@...lanox.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: force flush upon NETDEV_UNREGISTER event
On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 7:00 AM Steffen Klassert
<steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 05:24:22PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
...
> > Therefore, I wonder what are security_xfrm_state_delete() and security_xfrm_policy_delete()
> > for. Can I kill xfrm_dev_state_flush_secctx_check() and xfrm_dev_policy_flush_secctx_check() ?
>
> This might violate a LSM policy then.
Exactly. SELinux is currently the only LSM that enforces any access
controls on the XFRM/IPsec code, but it does use both of these LSM
hooks to authorize deletion of SPD/SA objects.
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists