From: Darrel Goeddel <sedgoeddel@gmail.com>
To: Venkat Yekkirala <vyekkirala@TrustedCS.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul.moore@hp.com>,
selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Darrel Goeddel <DGoeddel@TrustedCS.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com, joe@nall.com,
Eric Paris <eparis@parisplace.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Static/fallback external labels for NetLabel
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:39:05 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46D45DB9.2040003@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D709A20F2164C84E8B7014B0301F5EF8521408@HAVOC.tcs-sec.com>
Venkat Yekkirala wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Moore [mailto:paul.moore@hp.com]
>>
>> I agree that having a default, flow control "catch
>> all"/unlabeled_t check is a
>> good idea and preserved the SELinux philosophy but doing so
>> without breaking
>> the flow of packets in/out/through a system with old policy
>> is not an easy
>> task. At some point in the future, if we want to reconcile
>> all of the peer
>> label access checks to a single object class, we'll probably
>> need to do
>> something similar to the compat_net (compat_net_peer?) flag.
>
> We could actually do this as part of this, correct (unless I
> missed any one's objections elsewhere).
I agree - bring it on. We're unifying the on-the-wire labeling
mechanism by making sure that they agree if more than one is use. That
is a good start. I'd really like to continue on here and get the
unified access check so we don't have to do netlabel style and labeled
ipsec style peer access checks. The target context for both the
association checks and the *_socket (netlabel) checks will be the same.
Why not just drop the association checks since the *idea* is now
covered in the *_socket checks?
I am assuming that the *_socket checks used by netlabel would be
checking against the new peer label that is in (at least near) the skb,
is that right? If so, the *_socket checks also take care of the peer
label coming from loopback. This would be a bit of a policy change
since the *_socket checks now apply to domains (not just the base type
from the initial sid) since the loopback traffic goes through the same
checks. I at least hope we don't add another, separate, check for the
loopback case...
That was just one idea, but I definitely think the unification should be
a goal of this exercise.
--
Darrel
--
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-28 17:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 100+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-28 16:30 [RFC 0/5] Static/fallback external labels for NetLabel Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-28 17:39 ` Darrel Goeddel [this message]
2007-08-28 19:36 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-28 19:26 ` Paul Moore
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-08-29 16:15 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-29 16:41 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-29 15:29 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-29 15:45 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-29 15:07 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-28 18:02 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-28 19:47 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-28 16:13 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-28 16:32 ` Joe Nall
2007-08-28 19:08 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-27 22:09 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-28 14:51 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-28 14:58 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-28 15:12 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-28 15:51 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-28 16:18 ` Joe Nall
2007-08-28 18:51 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-28 19:10 ` Joe Nall
2007-08-28 19:08 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-28 19:48 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-28 22:26 ` Joe Nall
2007-08-29 0:16 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-29 3:45 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-29 4:11 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-29 4:49 ` Joe Nall
2007-08-29 14:04 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-29 15:50 ` Joe Nall
2007-08-29 16:31 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-29 12:21 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-29 14:26 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-29 14:56 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-29 15:08 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-29 16:55 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-28 17:23 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-28 19:07 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-27 13:02 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-27 13:48 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-27 12:59 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-27 12:57 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-27 12:44 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-27 14:37 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-24 18:11 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-24 17:37 Venkat Yekkirala
2007-08-25 21:01 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-07 14:14 Paul Moore
2007-08-09 10:57 ` KaiGai Kohei
2007-08-09 11:48 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 12:42 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-09 13:29 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 13:54 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-09 14:48 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 15:49 ` James Morris
2007-08-09 16:01 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-09 22:35 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 13:59 ` James Morris
2007-08-09 14:50 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 15:13 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-09 14:41 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-09 14:57 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 15:07 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-09 15:32 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-09 15:39 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-09 16:16 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-09 14:09 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-09 14:24 ` James Morris
2007-08-09 16:42 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-09 19:20 ` Joe Nall
2007-08-09 19:47 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-09 20:12 ` Joe Nall
2007-08-09 21:15 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-08-09 21:18 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-09 22:48 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 20:17 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 14:53 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 16:08 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-09 22:55 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-10 16:49 ` James Morris
2007-08-14 14:47 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-15 4:24 ` James Morris
2007-08-15 22:35 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-16 15:04 ` James Morris
2007-08-24 16:31 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-24 18:34 ` James Morris
2007-08-24 19:02 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-24 19:49 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-24 20:17 ` James Morris
2007-08-24 20:24 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-24 20:47 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-24 20:42 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-24 21:10 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-24 21:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-24 20:29 ` Joshua Brindle
2007-08-28 14:03 ` Darrel Goeddel
2007-08-28 15:16 ` Paul Moore
2007-08-09 15:48 ` Casey Schaufler
2007-08-09 19:38 ` Paul Moore
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46D45DB9.2040003@gmail.com \
--to=sedgoeddel@gmail.com \
--cc=DGoeddel@TrustedCS.com \
--cc=eparis@parisplace.org \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=joe@nall.com \
--cc=kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com \
--cc=paul.moore@hp.com \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=vyekkirala@TrustedCS.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.