Török Edwin wrote:
> On Saturday 18 February 2006 21:28, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>>Besides the tasklist_lock issues, there is no 1:1 relationship between
>>sockets and processes, which is why this can never work. You don't know
>>which process is going to receive a packet until it calls recvmsg().
>
> Can sockets be "labeled". Like creating a label for each process, and then
> apply a label to each socket they open. If a socket gets shared, then it gets
> multiple labels.
> I see that you talk about SELinux labels below, but is there a way to "label"
> anything without using SELinux? (Maybe by writing another LSM module that
> does just this socket labeling?)
> I could then just check the labels to see if a packet is allowed to pass/ or
> not.
I'm not familiar with SElinux, so I don't know.
>>There is some work in progress to solve this problem in a different way,
>>by adding new hooks to the protocols that get the socket as context,
>>and using SElinux labels instead of process names/inodes/whatever for
>>matching.
>
> Could you tell me on which thread/mailing list this discussion/(work in
> progress) is taking place? I'd like to follow it.
There has been some discussion on netdev and netfilter-devel. I'm
currently porting the patches to a current tree and fixing the
remaining problems, I'll probably post them to netdev in a week or
two.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
