Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet

David Miller
2013-04-08T21:15:12Z

From: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
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.