From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [Bug #11500] /proc/net bug related to selinux Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:11:43 -0700 Message-ID: <20080917151143.debb6adc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1221483926.30816.18.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20080917125053.1f9ecf37.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200809171724.36269.paul.moore@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: paul.moore-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org, sds-+05T5uksL2qpZYMLLGbcSA@public.gmane.org, jmorris-gx6/JNMH7DfYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:39:45 -0700 ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Paul Moore writes: > > > We suck? Maybe, but some explanation about why we suck in this > > particular case would be helpful as far as I'm concerned. I don't > > really care about identifying the guilty suckees, I'm more interested > > in finding out what happened to cause us to suck because of this. > > Agreed. I believe we carefully gave selinux the same paths for /proc/net > that it had before so I don't know why this affects user space. > > I know we had some selinux review when we made the change. > > Eric It's back up-thread somewhere. umm... On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:05:26 -0400 Stephen Smalley wrote: > However, the most likely explanation is simply that when /proc/net was > changed from being a directory to being a symlink to /proc/self/net, > that introduced an additional permission check on accesses > of /proc/net/, namely the read check on the symlink itself. > And since that check wasn't happening on /proc/net accesses with older > kernels, older policies didn't allow it.