RE: Labeled networking packets

[Karl MacMillan <kmacmillan@mentalrootkit.com>]

On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 11:35 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 10:13 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> > > From: Venkat Yekkirala [mailto:vyekkirala@TrustedCS.com] 
> > > Let's go back to the drawing board, first of all define the 
> > > problems we are trying to solve, and come up with a design.
> > > 
> > 
> > My single requirement is that getpeercon() returns the full context of
> > the remote process (or some translation negotiated by racoon). 
> 
> That single requirement is bogus - you'll never get it.  At most, you'll
> get the full context of the remote socket endpoint.  Which might be the
> same as the process, but not necessarily.
> 

Just because it will be hard or impossible to get this data doesn't mean
the requirement is bogus. It seems to me that getting the process
context is helpful whenever the data stream is really some form of
remote procedure call. So, are you really objecting to the requirement
conceptually or just pointing out that it won't happen?

The remote socket is probably good enough, though, and as Josh points
out policy can enforce that the socket type matches the current process
domain type (or at least a domain type).

Karl


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.