From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: Refactor Netlink connector? Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 11:42:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20060527134629.GA16306@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060531030046.GC7844@postel.suug.ch> <1149078055.5462.55.camel@jzny2> <20060531130649.GD7844@postel.suug.ch> <1149081752.5462.98.camel@jzny2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Thomas Graf , Evgeniy Polyakov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Stephen Smalley Return-path: Received: from mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.6]:54160 "EHLO mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965066AbWEaPms (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2006 11:42:48 -0400 To: jamal In-Reply-To: <1149081752.5462.98.camel@jzny2> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 31 May 2006, jamal wrote: > To also answer your other email: > Look at security/selinux/nlmsgtab.c for example for NETLINK_ROUTE > and compare with NETLINK_GENERIC to see the hole. I was suggesting if > we started by just adding checks for NETLINK_GENERIC first in those > tables (currently lacking), that would be a good start. They're currently mediated as a generic netlink socket type at a higher level: they're not unmediated, just not fine grained enough to know what kind of message is being sent. -- James Morris