From: Vincent Brillault <gentoo+selinux@lerya.net>
To: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: RFC: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174405
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 21:39:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150110203949.GA6331@Fea.lerya.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150110191517.GA30004@bigboy.network2>
Hi,
I'm not sure I understand the "performance" impact considerations.
Indeed, if we were to try to control the binding to 'ephemeral' ports
individually, the looping that Stephen proposed would definitely have a
huge impact if all port are denied (as the kernel will have to loop over
all of them to find out that all bindings are denied).
However, does considering all these ports individually make sense?
If we can consider them as a group, not individually, I believe that we
could control 'ephemeral' bindings with almost no performance hit.
For example, we could create a permission 'ephemeral_bind' in addition
to bind and named_bind:
- bind controls the ability to invoke the bind system calls
- named_bind controls the ability to bind a given non ephemeral port
- ephemeral_bind would controls the ability to bind any 'ephemeral' port
Would that make sense?
I'm not a kernel/selinux developper, so I can't judge the amount of work
needed to implement such a solution, but I don't think that this issue
can be discarded for 'performance' reasons.
Cheers,
Vincent Brillault
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-10 20:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-09 21:05 RFC: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174405 Dominick Grift
2015-01-09 21:52 ` Stephen Smalley
2015-01-09 22:19 ` Dominick Grift
2015-01-09 22:22 ` eric gisse
2015-01-10 3:02 ` Paul Moore
2015-01-10 9:56 ` Dominick Grift
2015-01-10 16:49 ` Stephen Smalley
2015-01-10 17:19 ` Dominick Grift
2015-01-10 17:43 ` Dominick Grift
2015-01-10 18:54 ` Stephen Smalley
2015-01-10 19:15 ` Dominick Grift
2015-01-10 20:39 ` Vincent Brillault [this message]
2015-01-12 16:29 ` Stephen Smalley
2015-01-11 15:49 ` Paul Moore
2015-01-11 16:23 ` Dominick Grift
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=20150110203949.GA6331@Fea.lerya.net \
--to=gentoo+selinux@lerya.net \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.