Re: Possible fix

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

On Wednesday, March 05, 2014 01:20:09 PM Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 05:10:47PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:10:07 AM Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > > On 02/28/2014 08:23 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > > Looking at the git history, it seems that this bug is about nine
> > > > years old. I guess noone is actually using this.
> > 
> > Most (all?) of the labeled IPsec users use the netlink interface and not
> > pfkey so it isn't surprising that this has gone unnoticed for some time.
>
> Right, that's not really surprising. But it is a bit surprising that
> we care for the security context only if we add a socket policy via
> the pfkey key manager. The security context is not handled if we do
> that with the netlink key manager, see xfrm_compile_policy().
> 
> I'm not that familiar with selinux and labeled IPsec, but maybe this
> needs to be implemented in xfrm_compile_policy() too.

Okay, I see your point.  We probably should add support for per-socket policy 
labels just to keep parity with the pfkey code (and this is far removed from 
any critical path), but to be honest it isn't something that I think would get 
much use in practice.  Labeled networking users tend to fall under the very 
strict, one-system-wide-security-policy and per-socket policies tend to go 
against that logic.

I'll have to think about it some more.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com