netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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).