From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mlsxfrm: Various fixes Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:59:45 -0500 Message-ID: <4552B5C1.8040007@hp.com> References: <000501c70342$83b9df70$cc0a010a@tcssec.com> <4552A9AC.3060708@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: vyekkirala@TrustedCS.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, sds@tycho.nsa.gov Return-path: Received: from ccerelrim04.cce.hp.com ([161.114.21.25]:11602 "EHLO ccerelrim04.cce.hp.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753289AbWKIE75 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:59:57 -0500 To: James Morris In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Paul Moore wrote: > >>1. Functionality is available right now, no additional kernel changes needed >>2. No special handling for localhost, I tend to like the idea of having >>consistent behavior for all addresses/interfaces > > I don't agree. SO_PEERSEC should always just work for loopback, just like > with Unix sockets. My main concern is that we would have "special" behavior for a single IP address and that this behavior wouldn't be subject to the same labeled networking configuration/management methods as the rest of the address space. Treating localhost like any other IP address seems consistent with the way we handle Unix sockets - we don't have any special handling depending on the path of the socket. -- paul moore linux security @ hp