netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@epoch.ncsc.mil>
Cc: Linux Audit Discussion <linux-audit@redhat.com>,
	netdev@oss.sgi.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add audit uid to netlink credentials
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:38:16 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050209153816.B24171@build.pdx.osdl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1107974448.17568.108.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>; from sds@epoch.ncsc.mil on Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 01:40:48PM -0500

* Stephen Smalley (sds@epoch.ncsc.mil) wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 13:37, Chris Wright wrote:
> > This means sendmsg hook would set the SID?  And in that case, you'd
> > stomp on loginuid for audit messages unless they are special cased.
> 
> I was referring to a separate field for use by security modules, not
> re-use of the same field being proposed for the loginuid.  Yes, it would
> be set by the security_netlink_send hook.  The principal problem with
> such a security field is that unless we mandate it to be a simple
> integer value (like a SELinux SID), we have to deal with lifecycle
> management for it, i.e. a set of hooks that starts to look like the
> sk_buff security hooks from the old LSM patch.  But if we can limit it
> to a simple value, then it would be useful for such security
> identifiers, and allow receiver-side permission checks based on the
> sender SID.

This makes sense to me.  Just an extension of existing eff_cap and would
be used by security modules for each netlink packet.

> > The loginuid is special case to audit, it doesn't make sense to me that
> > it is in generic netlink_skb_parms structure unless it's used by more
> > netlink users.
> 
> So you also think it should be in the payload?  That would require
> security_netlink_send to dig into the payload if we wanted to control
> who can specify other loginuids, as Serge noted.

I just don't see it making sense to add another credential for a special
case.  The signal code already peaks into the siginfo struct when queueing
a signal to make sure some user isn't trying to send si_code == SI_KERNEL
or similar.  Perhaps audit could do that with it's own payload during send.
No matter how we slice it, it's a special case.

Hmm, perhaps we could eliminate the whole asynchronous issue by allowing
registration of a netlink link specific security handler.  Something like:

netlink_kernel_create_sec(unit, rx, sec_handler)

Then the check would be done before the packet was ever queued.  This
would eliminate the if (NETLINK_CREDS(skb)->$cred == bad) on receipt
side, and push it to sender side.  It would also be link specific so
audit could do it's audit payload loginuid check here.  I think it would
also eliminate SELinux's need to tag the packet for later checking on
receipt.  Thoughts?

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net

  reply	other threads:[~2005-02-09 23:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-02-04 16:58 [PATCH] Add audit uid to netlink credentials Serge E. Hallyn
2005-02-08  6:04 ` Patrick McHardy
2005-02-09 13:34   ` Stephen Smalley
2005-02-09 14:10     ` Patrick McHardy
2005-02-09 14:19     ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2005-02-09 16:49       ` Alexey Kuznetsov
2005-02-09 18:52         ` Patrick McHardy
2005-02-09 18:53           ` Stephen Smalley
2005-02-09 14:17 ` David Woodhouse
2005-02-09 14:50   ` Serge Hallyn
2005-02-09 18:23     ` Stephen Smalley
2005-02-09 18:37       ` Chris Wright
2005-02-09 18:40         ` Stephen Smalley
2005-02-09 23:38           ` Chris Wright [this message]
2005-02-09 23:56             ` David Woodhouse
2005-02-10  0:19               ` Chris Wright
2005-02-10  9:20                 ` David Woodhouse
2005-02-10 12:40                 ` Stephen Smalley
2005-02-10 12:49                   ` David Woodhouse
2005-02-10 17:14                   ` Chris Wright
2005-02-10  1:11             ` Chris Wright
2005-02-10 12:36               ` Stephen Smalley
2005-02-10 12:51                 ` Stephen Smalley
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-02-10 14:37 Chad Hanson
2005-02-10 14:56 ` David Woodhouse
2005-02-10 17:52   ` Klaus Weidner
2005-02-10 18:10     ` Casey Schaufler
2005-02-10 19:26       ` Klaus Weidner
2005-02-10 15:16 Chad Hanson

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=20050209153816.B24171@build.pdx.osdl.net \
    --to=chrisw@osdl.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=sds@epoch.ncsc.mil \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).