Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-17 Thread James Morris
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Thomas Bleher wrote: > This all looks very nice - Thank You! > Just one question: does the code canonicalize the security label? It > would be nice if the same rules could be used on MLS and non-MLS > systems. No, it shouldn't be necessary, as there's no legacy installed base

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-17 Thread Thomas Bleher
* James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-14 08:03]: > Included below is an incremental patch against the initial secmark posting > last week: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/34927/focus=34927 > > This posting to gather feedback on changes made since then primarily to > address con

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-15 Thread Karl MacMillan
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 02:03 -0400, James Morris wrote: > Included below is an incremental patch against the initial secmark posting > last week: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/34927/focus=34927 > > This posting to gather feedback on changes made since then primarily to > address con

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread Patrick McHardy
James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>But if you don't specify --track, the module loader will still have to >>resolve the symbol, so it gets loaded anyway, before your code will >>even run. Just look at need_conntrack(): > > > Doh. It should be try_module_get

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 15 May 2006, James Morris wrote: > > Doh. It should be try_module_get(). Sound ok? Of course, I mean request_module(). -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 15 May 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > But if you don't specify --track, the module loader will still have to > resolve the symbol, so it gets loaded anyway, before your code will > even run. Just look at need_conntrack(): Doh. It should be try_module_get(). Sound ok? - James -- James

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread Patrick McHardy
James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>>Not sure what you mean: it will cause ip_conntrack to be loaded, which >>>is needed when you specify the track flag. >> >> >>Yes, but the reason why it is loaded is because the module loader needs >>to resolve the symbol, n

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 15 May 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > Not sure what you mean: it will cause ip_conntrack to be loaded, which > > is needed when you specify the track flag. > > > Yes, but the reason why it is loaded is because the module loader needs > to resolve the symbol, not because of anything do

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread Patrick McHardy
James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > This will load the conntrack modules even if the track flag is not set. >>> >>> >>>I guess need_conntrack() could be moved to checkentry() and only called >>>if the track flag is set. >> >> >>That won't help, the function

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 15 May 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >>This will load the conntrack modules even if the track flag is not set. > > > > > > I guess need_conntrack() could be moved to checkentry() and only called > > if the track flag is set. > > > That won't help, the function itself does nothing, it

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread Patrick McHardy
James Morris wrote: > On Sun, 14 May 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > >>James Morris wrote: >> >>>@@ -135,6 +175,9 @@ static int __init xt_secmark_init(void) >>> { >>> int err; >>> >>>+if (tracking_enabled()) >>>+need_conntrack(); >>>+ >> >>This will load the conntrack module

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread James Morris
On Sun, 14 May 2006, Patrick McHardy wrote: > James Morris wrote: > > @@ -135,6 +175,9 @@ static int __init xt_secmark_init(void) > > { > > int err; > > > > + if (tracking_enabled()) > > + need_conntrack(); > > + > > This will load the conntrack modules even if the track flag i

Re: [RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-14 Thread Patrick McHardy
James Morris wrote: > @@ -135,6 +175,9 @@ static int __init xt_secmark_init(void) > { > int err; > > + if (tracking_enabled()) > + need_conntrack(); > + This will load the conntrack modules even if the track flag is not set. Wouldn't it be better to put everything related

[RFC] SECMARK 1.1

2006-05-13 Thread James Morris
Included below is an incremental patch against the initial secmark posting last week: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/34927/focus=34927 This posting to gather feedback on changes made since then primarily to address concerns raised by Karl MacMillan on providing fine-grained assuran