From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:10:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3505145.vfXt1x4t0P@sifl> References: <20130408154519.18177.57709.stgit@localhost> <1725553.maWFXblPLa@sifl> <31036542.d4Dp22e6Ij@sifl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , netdev@vger.kernel.org, mvadkert@redhat.com, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: In-Reply-To: <31036542.d4Dp22e6Ij@sifl> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org 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? -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat