Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review

Stephen Smalley
2007-08-22T13:48:49Z

On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 09:36 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:23 -0700, James Morris wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> >
> > > I got a problem with SELinux
> > > http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log
> > > http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/stable-config
> >
> > Please set
> > CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_ENABLE_SECMARK_DEFAULT=n
> >
> > You don't have complete policy for the new network controls, which are not
> > enabled by default and not integreated fully into distros yet.
>
> Still, that denial shouldn't be against kernel_t unless he has iptables
> SECMARK rules that assign that value.
>
> It's the change to the skb allocator - no longer clears up through
> truesize and thus secmark is garbage initially. That would apply to
> mainline too.

Oops, never mind - tail still follows secmark, so that shouldn't matter.
So I'm not sure why we are getting a bad value for secmark here - should
be initialized to zero and never modified unless there is an iptables
secmark rule.

--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency