From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] secmark: make secmark object handling generic Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:20:48 -0400 Message-ID: <1286925648.5133.103.camel@sifl> References: <20101012154008.26943.44399.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <20101012154015.26943.18385.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <1286924143.5133.86.camel@sifl> <1286924512.2614.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1286924762.5133.91.camel@sifl> <1286925270.2614.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, jengelh@medozas.de, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, mr.dash.four@googlemail.com, pablo@netfilter.org To: Eric Paris Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1286925270.2614.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:14 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:01 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 18:55 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 11:40 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > > > > Right now secmark has lots of direct selinux calls. Use all LSM calls and > > > > > remove all SELinux specific knowledge. The only SELinux specific knowledge > > > > > we leave is the mode. The only point is to make sure that other LSMs at > > > > > least test this generic code before they assume it works. (They may also > > > > > have to make changes if they do not represent labels as strings) > > > > > > > > I'm sure you have, but I just want to make sure - you've tested this > > > > change (and the others for that matter) against the existing iptables > > > > userspace to make sure everything still works, right? > > > > > > I did. The only patch which needs userspace changes is the exporting of > > > secctx over netlink. It appears the current userspace tools just > > > ignores unknown field types. I have a patch to userspace to tell it > > > about the new field and will send it after the kernel patch goes in. > > > > Okay, that's good. Is the existing, i.e. unmodified, userspace still > > able set a Secmark with your patches applied? That is the part I'm most > > concerned about right now ... > > It is. Everything about secmark is still userspace ABI compatible. > (except what I indicated) Excellent, I figured that was the case but just wanted to see it in writing :) Acked-by: Paul Moore -- paul moore linux @ hp