Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

2020-10-28 Thread James Morris
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:44 AM Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:09 PM James Morris wrote: > > > I'm not keen on adding a parameter which nobody is using. Perhaps a note > > > in the header instead? > > > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:14 AM H

Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

2020-10-28 Thread Paul Moore
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:44 AM Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:09 PM James Morris wrote: > > I'm not keen on adding a parameter which nobody is using. Perhaps a note > > in the header instead? > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:14 AM Herbert Xu > wrote: > > Please at least change to t

Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

2020-09-30 Thread Paul Moore
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 7:09 PM James Morris wrote: > I'm not keen on adding a parameter which nobody is using. Perhaps a note > in the header instead? On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:14 AM Herbert Xu wrote: > Please at least change to the struct flowi to flowi_common if we're > not adding a family fi

Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

2020-09-30 Thread Herbert Xu
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:09:20AM +1000, James Morris wrote: > > I'm not keen on adding a parameter which nobody is using. Perhaps a note > in the header instead? Please at least change to the struct flowi to flowi_common if we're not adding a family field. Thanks, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home P

Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

2020-09-29 Thread James Morris
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020, Paul Moore wrote: > As pointed out by Herbert in a recent related patch, the LSM hooks > should pass the address family in addition to the xfrm flow as the > family information is needed to safely access the flow. > > While this is not technically a problem for the current LS

Re: [RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

2020-09-29 Thread Casey Schaufler
On 9/29/2020 2:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > As pointed out by Herbert in a recent related patch, the LSM hooks > should pass the address family in addition to the xfrm flow as the > family information is needed to safely access the flow. > > While this is not technically a problem for the current LSM

[RFC PATCH] lsm,selinux: pass the family information along with xfrm flow

2020-09-29 Thread Paul Moore
As pointed out by Herbert in a recent related patch, the LSM hooks should pass the address family in addition to the xfrm flow as the family information is needed to safely access the flow. While this is not technically a problem for the current LSM/SELinux code as it only accesses fields common t