On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 10:33 -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 PROTECTED]> > > --- > > 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)?
Wouldn't that make secmark useless in the non labeled networking case? -- Chris PeBenito Tresys Technology, LLC (410) 290-1411 x150 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
