From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@hp.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>, eparis@redhat.com
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] lsm: Add hooks to the TUN driver
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:58:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200908051758.39051.paul.moore@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090805141350.GA353@us.ibm.com>
On Wednesday 05 August 2009 10:13:50 am Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Paul Moore (paul.moore@hp.com):
[NOTE: my email has been out all day due to some mysterious FS issue so my
apologies for not replying sooner]
...
> The checks before and after this patch are not equivalent. Post-patch,
> one must always have CAP_NET_ADMIN to do the attach, whereas pre-patch
> you only needed those if current_cred() did not own the tun device. Is
> that intentional?
Nope, just a goof on my part; I misread the booleans and haven't fully tested
the patch yet so it slipped out, thanks for catching it. This brings up a
good point, would we rather move the TUN owner/group checks into the cap_tun_*
functions or move the capable() call back into the TUN driver? The answer
wasn't clear to me when I was looking at the code before and the uniqueness of
the TUN driver doesn't help much in this regard.
> Also as Eric said this patch needs to set the cap_ hooks. This patch
> isn't yet introducing the selinux hooks, so iiuc actually this patch should
> always oops if CONFIG_SECURITY=y.
Yep, another symptom of not enough testing as I mentioned out in the original
posting, thanks to both of you for pointing this out ... now somebody just
needs to fix Rawhide so I can actually get a KVM instance running :)
--
paul moore
linux @ hp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-05 21:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-04 21:21 [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] The Long Lost TUN LSM Hooks Paul Moore
2009-08-04 21:21 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] lsm: Add hooks to the TUN driver Paul Moore
2009-08-05 13:03 ` Eric Paris
2009-08-05 14:13 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-05 21:58 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2009-08-06 2:15 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-06 14:24 ` Paul Moore
2009-08-06 15:52 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-06 16:25 ` Paul Moore
2009-08-06 18:38 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-08-04 21:22 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/2] selinux: Support for the new TUN LSM hooks Paul Moore
2009-08-05 13:06 ` Eric Paris
2009-08-05 0:43 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/2] The Long Lost TUN LSM Hooks James Morris
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=200908051758.39051.paul.moore@hp.com \
--to=paul.moore@hp.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.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 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).