From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20130408.171512.973275376690340387.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1725553.maWFXblPLa@sifl> <31036542.d4Dp22e6Ij@sifl> <3505145.vfXt1x4t0P@sifl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: eric.dumazet@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mvadkert@redhat.com, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org To: pmoore@redhat.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3505145.vfXt1x4t0P@sifl> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Paul Moore Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:10:43 -0400 > On Monday, April 08, 2013 02:32:00 PM Paul Moore wrote: >> On Monday, April 08, 2013 02:12:01 PM Paul Moore wrote: >> > On Monday, April 08, 2013 10:47:47 AM Eric Dumazet wrote: >> > > On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 13:40 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: >> > > > Sort of a similar problem, but not really the same. Also, arguably, >> > > > there is no real associated sock/socket for a RST so orphaning the >> > > > packet makes sense. In the case of a SYNACK we can, and should, >> > > > associate the packet with a sock/socket. >> > > >> > > What is the intent ? >> > >> > We have to do a number of painful things in SELinux because we aren't >> > allowed a proper security blob (void *security) in a sk_buff. One of >> > those things ... >> >> Actually, I wonder if this problem means it is a good time to revisit the >> no- security-blob-in-sk_buff decision? The management of the blob would be >> hidden behind the LSM hooks like everything else and it would have a number >> of advantages including making problems like we are seeing here easier to >> fix or avoid entirely. It would also make life much easier for those of >> working on LSM stuff and it would pave the way for including network access >> controls in the stacked-LSM stuff Casey is kicking around. > > No comment, or am I just too anxious? There is no way I'm putting LSM overhead into sk_buff, it's already too big. I didn't comment because it wasn't worth a comment, but since you're pushing me on the issue, I'll make the no explicit.