Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] secid reconcialiation: Replace unlabeled_t with the network_t

From: Paul Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:43:43 -0400

Paul Moore wrote:
> Venkat Yekkirala wrote:
> 
>>The following replaces unlabeled_t with network_t for
>>better characterization of the flow out/in checks in
>>SELinux, as well as to allow for mls packets to
>>flow out/in from the network since network_t would allow
>>the full range of MLS labels, as opposed to the unlabeled init sid
>>that only allows system-hi.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Venkat Yekkirala <[email-masked]>
>>---
>>This is an incremental patch the secid-reconcilation v4 patchset.
>>
>>--- net-2.6.sid3/security/selinux/hooks.c	2006-10-01 15:43:12.000000000 -0500
>>+++ net-2.6/security/selinux/hooks.c	2006-10-03 16:43:21.000000000 -0500
>>@@ -3703,7 +3703,8 @@ static int selinux_skb_flow_in(struct sk
>> 	err = selinux_xfrm_decode_session(skb, &xfrm_sid, 0);
>> 	BUG_ON(err);
>> 
>>-	err = avc_has_perm(xfrm_sid, skb->secmark, SECCLASS_PACKET,
>>+	err = avc_has_perm(xfrm_sid, skb->secmark? : SECINITSID_NETMSG,
>>+					SECCLASS_PACKET,
>> 					PACKET__FLOW_IN, NULL);
>> 	if (err)
>> 		goto out;
>>@@ -3900,7 +3901,7 @@ static unsigned int selinux_ip_postroute
>> 				skb->secmark = sksec->sid;
>> 			}
>> 		}
>>-		err = avc_has_perm(skb->secmark, SECINITSID_UNLABELED,
>>+		err = avc_has_perm(skb->secmark, SECINITSID_NETMSG,
>> 				   SECCLASS_PACKET, PACKET__FLOW_OUT, &ad);
>> 	}
>> out:
> 
> 
> Considering the above change, I wonder if it would also make sense to
> update the secmark to SECINITSID_UNLABELED in the abscence of any
> external labeling (labeled IPsec or NetLabel)?
> 

Ungh, my apologies ... I meant to say "SECINITSID_NETMSG" *not*
"SECINITSID_UNLABELED".

-- 
paul moore
linux security @ hp