From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca•com>
To: Rongqing Li <rongqing.li@windriver•com>
Cc: netdev@vger•kernel.org, selinux@tycho•nsa.gov,
linux-security-module@vger•kernel.org, sds@tycho•nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Security: define security_sk_getsecid.
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:57:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E41D78C.7040007@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E41D421.1000302@windriver.com>
On 8/9/2011 5:43 PM, Rongqing Li wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 12:13 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 8/9/2011 12:28 AM, rongqing.li@windriver•com wrote:
>>> From: Roy.Li<rongqing.li@windriver•com>
>>>
>>> Define security_sk_getsecid to get the security id of a sock.
>>
>> Why are you requesting the secid when you're just going to
>> use it to get the secctx? Why not ask for that directly?
>> Is there ever a case where you only want the secid?
>>
> Hi:
>
> As I know, we have not method to get secctx directly.
You are defining the method! Ask for what you want!
The whole notion of secids is a holdover from the bad old
days when SELinux was a user space based enforcement mechanism.
The audit system was implemented when SELinux was the lone LSM
and unfortunately and unnecessarily propagated the use of secids.
If an object has a secid it must also have a secctx. The
interfaces that use secids could just as well use the secctx.
It is wasteful to create a new interface that fetches a secid
just to turn around and ask for the secctx in all cases.
> On the most of time, we get secctx like this.
>
> The below comes from kernel/auditsc.c
>
> void audit_log_task_context(struct audit_buffer *ab)
> {
> char *ctx = NULL;
> unsigned len;
> int error;
> u32 sid;
>
> security_task_getsecid(current, &sid);
> if (!sid)
> return;
>
> error = security_secid_to_secctx(sid, &ctx, &len);
> if (error) {
> if (error != -EINVAL)
> goto error_path;
> return;
> }
>
> audit_log_format(ab, " subj=%s", ctx);
> security_release_secctx(ctx, len);
> return;
>
> error_path:
> audit_panic("error in audit_log_task_context");
> return;
> }
>
>
> -Roy
>
>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Roy.Li<rongqing.li@windriver•com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/security.h | 6 ++++++
>>> security/security.c | 6 ++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
>>> index ebd2a53..739ac39 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/security.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/security.h
>>> @@ -2560,6 +2560,7 @@ int security_sk_alloc(struct sock *sk, int family, gfp_t priority);
>>> void security_sk_free(struct sock *sk);
>>> void security_sk_clone(const struct sock *sk, struct sock *newsk);
>>> void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi *fl);
>>> +void security_sk_getsecid(struct sock *sk, u32 *secid);
>>> void security_req_classify_flow(const struct request_sock *req, struct flowi *fl);
>>> void security_sock_graft(struct sock*sk, struct socket *parent);
>>> int security_inet_conn_request(struct sock *sk,
>>> @@ -2701,6 +2702,11 @@ static inline void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi *fl)
>>> {
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static inline void security_sk_getsecid(struct sock *sk, u32 *secid)
>>> +{
>>> + *secid = 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static inline void security_req_classify_flow(const struct request_sock *req, struct flowi *fl)
>>> {
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
>>> index 0e4fccf..b0e0825 100644
>>> --- a/security/security.c
>>> +++ b/security/security.c
>>> @@ -1104,6 +1104,12 @@ void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi *fl)
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_classify_flow);
>>>
>>> +void security_sk_getsecid(struct sock *sk, u32 *secid)
>>> +{
>>> + security_ops->sk_getsecid(sk, secid);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_getsecid);
>>> +
>>> void security_req_classify_flow(const struct request_sock *req, struct flowi *fl)
>>> {
>>> security_ops->req_classify_flow(req, fl);
>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-10 0:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-09 7:28 [v2 PATCH 0/6] Export the sock's security context to proc rongqing.li
2011-08-09 7:28 ` [PATCH 1/6] Security: define security_sk_getsecid rongqing.li
2011-08-09 16:13 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-08-10 0:43 ` Rongqing Li
2011-08-10 0:57 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2011-08-10 1:24 ` Rongqing Li
2011-08-10 1:35 ` Casey Schaufler
2011-08-10 1:44 ` Rongqing Li
2011-08-10 12:49 ` Stephen Smalley
2011-08-09 7:28 ` [PATCH 2/6] Define the function to write sock's security context to seq_file rongqing.li
2011-08-09 7:28 ` [PATCH 3/6] Export the raw sock's security context to proc rongqing.li
2011-08-09 7:28 ` [PATCH 4/6] Export the udp " rongqing.li
2011-08-09 7:28 ` [PATCH 5/6] Export the unix " rongqing.li
2011-08-09 7:28 ` [PATCH 6/6] Export the tcp " rongqing.li
2011-08-09 7:33 ` David Miller
2011-08-09 8:54 ` Rongqing Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E41D78C.7040007@schaufler-ca.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=rongqing.li@windriver$(echo .)com \
--cc=sds@tycho$(echo .)nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@tycho$(echo .)nsa.gov \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox