From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul Moore" Subject: Re: Real networking namespace Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:40:27 -0400 Message-ID: <7264578776.939663627@hp.com> References: <20091009190820.0a0f09c2@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Cc: sds@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org To: shemminger@linux-foundation.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091009190820.0a0f09c2@nehalam> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org ------- Original message ------- > From: Stephen Hemminger > Cc: sds@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, > viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org > Sent: 10/9, 22:08 > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 18:12:15 -0400 > Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Friday 09 October 2009 12:44:52 pm Stephen Smalley wrote: >> > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 12:37 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: >> > > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 08:38 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> > > > The existing networking namespace model is unattractive for what I >> > > > want, has anyone investigated better alternatives? >> > > > >> > > > I would like to be able to allow access to a network interface and >> > > > associated objects (routing tables etc), to be controlled by >> Mandatory >> > > > Access Control API's. I.e grant access to eth0 and to only certain >> > > > processes. Some the issues with the existing models are: >> > > > * eth0 and associated objects don't really exist in filesystem >> so >> > > > not subject to LSM style control (SeLinux/SMACK/TOMOYO) >> >> As Stephen points out, SELinux does have the ability to assign security >> labels >> to network interfaces, check out the 'semanage' command. A while back I >> wrote >> up something about the SELinux network "ingress/egress" access controls: >> >> * http://paulmoore.livejournal.com/2128.html > > I was hoping to be able to not have inaccessible interfaces visible, > is it possible to not have interfaces show up in commands like: > ip link show > or sysfs? I haven't looked at the code for 'ip' but I'm pretty sure it uses netlink to configure the kernel, yes? If that is the case, no I don't believe any of the current LSMs provide that level of granularity (netlink, generic netlink in particular, is a bit of a problem spot at the moment). As for sysfs, I don't believe we label the interface related files based on their semanage labels but I could be wrong - we've got plenty of good people already working on fs labeling so I spend most of my time worrying about network labeling. -- paul moore linux @ hp