From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] secid reconcialiation: Replace unlabeled_t with the network_t Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:33:57 -0400 Message-ID: <4523C655.7010008@hp.com> References: <45231F6F.4030509@trustedcs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, jmorris@namei.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, eparis@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from atlrel8.hp.com ([156.153.255.206]:27866 "EHLO atlrel8.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161109AbWJDOeB (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:34:01 -0400 To: Venkat Yekkirala In-Reply-To: <45231F6F.4030509@trustedcs.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Venkat Yekkirala wrote: > The following replaces unlabeled_t with network_t for > better characterization of the flow out/in checks in > SELinux, as well as to allow for mls packets to > flow out/in from the network since network_t would allow > the full range of MLS labels, as opposed to the unlabeled init sid > that only allows system-hi. > > Signed-off-by: Venkat Yekkirala > --- > This is an incremental patch the secid-reconcilation v4 patchset. > > --- net-2.6.sid3/security/selinux/hooks.c 2006-10-01 15:43:12.000000000 -0500 > +++ net-2.6/security/selinux/hooks.c 2006-10-03 16:43:21.000000000 -0500 > @@ -3703,7 +3703,8 @@ static int selinux_skb_flow_in(struct sk > err = selinux_xfrm_decode_session(skb, &xfrm_sid, 0); > BUG_ON(err); > > - err = avc_has_perm(xfrm_sid, skb->secmark, SECCLASS_PACKET, > + err = avc_has_perm(xfrm_sid, skb->secmark? : SECINITSID_NETMSG, > + SECCLASS_PACKET, > PACKET__FLOW_IN, NULL); > if (err) > goto out; > @@ -3900,7 +3901,7 @@ static unsigned int selinux_ip_postroute > skb->secmark = sksec->sid; > } > } > - err = avc_has_perm(skb->secmark, SECINITSID_UNLABELED, > + err = avc_has_perm(skb->secmark, SECINITSID_NETMSG, > SECCLASS_PACKET, PACKET__FLOW_OUT, &ad); > } > out: Considering the above change, I wonder if it would also make sense to update the secmark to SECINITSID_UNLABELED in the abscence of any external labeling (labeled IPsec or NetLabel)? -- paul moore linux security @ hp