From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jobol@nonadev.net (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6k=?= Bollo) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:54:28 +0200 Subject: The secmark "one user" policy In-Reply-To: References: <2fbe01aa-8f9b-37f0-f79a-e34dcd1d0705@schaufler-ca.com> <118c3a45-8587-5cb9-fcd8-5cd8ca63a779@schaufler-ca.com> <734c4437-866b-ef10-0e1c-14b8d55dd528@schaufler-ca.com> Message-ID: <20170626095428.4c27fc71@d-jobol.iot.bzh> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:05:24 -0700 Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 6/25/2017 2:41 AM, James Morris wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > > >> On 6/22/2017 8:12 PM, James Morris wrote: > >>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Casey Schaufler wrote: > >>> > >>>> The combination of SELinux, Smack, AppArmor and/or TOMOYO is not > >>>> the goal so much as the test case. MAC was the coolest possible > >>>> technology in 1990. We've implemented it. I don't see anyone > >>>> doing a new MAC implementation. I *do* see security modules that > >>>> implement other security models in the pipeline. Some of these > >>>> need to maintain state, which means using security blobs in the > >>>> LSM architecture. Some of these models will want to use secmarks > >>>> to implement socket based controls. > >>> Where are these LSMs and where are the discussions about their > >>> LSM API needs? > >> LandLock, CaitSith, LoadPin (now in), Checmate, HardChroot, > >> PTAGS, SimpleFlow, SafeName, WhiteEgret, shebang, and S.A.R.A. > >> have all been discussed on the LSM list in the past two years. > > Which of these need to use secmarks to implement socket controls? > > PTAGS doesn't, but will need to do so to be complete. Hello Casey, The very sleepy PTAGS is suddently awaken (at least one ear :^). In my mind, PTAGS is dealing with processes. When packets are filtered, the only revelent info is the emitter process. At the moment, I don't see valuable situation where mediation isn't explicit thus faking origin isn't needed. So I would really like to understand your vision here. What do I miss? Best regards Jos? PS. I reworked the TUI (Task Unic Id) and have something valuable now. I haven't submitted it because I wanted to include a kind of FS library to provide /proc like features. But it is a nightmare to find a minute to work on this challenging part. I should really abandon that and work on TUI + PTAGS y basta. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe > linux-security-module" in the body of a message to > majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html