From: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, Andy King <acking@vmware.com>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: AF_VSOCK and the LSMs
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:45:54 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1968537.V0Fsdryuo8@sifl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5127F874.1050907@schaufler-ca.com>
On Friday, February 22, 2013 03:00:04 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Please add an LSM blob. Please do not use a secid. I am currently
> battling with secids in my efforts for multiple LSM support.
>
> ...
>
> I am going to be able to deal with secids for AF_INET only because
> SELinux prefers XFRM, Smack requires CIPSO, and AppArmor is going to
> be willing to have networking be optional.
"prefers"? Really Casey, did you think I would let you get away with that
statement? What a LSM "prefers" is really not relevant to the stacking
effort, what a LSM _supports_ is what matters.
SELinux _supports_ NetLabel (CIPSO, etc.), XFRM (labeled IPsec), and secmark.
Smack _supports_ NetLabel (CIPSO).
AppArmor and TOMOYO don't really do any of the forms of labeled networking
that are relevant for this discussion. If you are going to do stacking with
LSMs that conflict when it comes to what they _support_, not what they
_prefer_, with labeled networking then you are either going to have to either:
1. Selectively remove support from all but one of the LSMs. (ungh ...)
2. Convince netdev to give you a blob in the sk_buff. (the pigs are flying!)
3. Work some sub-system dependent magic.
If you want to try option #3 I think we might be able to do something with
NetLabel to support multiple LSMs as the label abstraction stuff should
theoretically make this possible; although the NetLabel cache will need some
work. Labeled IPsec is likely out due to the way it was designed unless you
want to attempt to negotiate two labels during the IKE exchange (yuck). I
think we can also rule out secmark as multi-LSM enabled due to the limitations
on a 32 bit integer.
If you want to talk about this further let me know - I think we've talked
about this at the past two security summits - but don't attempt to gloss over
details with this "prefers" crap.
> If you have two LSMs that use secids you are never going to have a
> rational way to get the information for both into one secid.
Exactly, I don't disagree which is why I've always said that networking was
going to be a major problem for the stacked LSM effort. Unfortunately it
sounds like you haven't yet made any serious effort into resolving that
problem other than saying "don't do that".
Now, circling back to the issue of secid/blob in the AF_VSOCK/VMCI context ...
based on Andy's email I think I'm still missing some critical bit of
understanding regarding how VMCI is used so let's punt on this for a moment;
however, your preference for a blob is noted (you also remember that I prefer
blobs when they make sense, reference a lot of our earlier discussions).
--
paul moore
security and virtualization @ redhat
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-23 0:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-22 22:33 AF_VSOCK and the LSMs Paul Moore
2013-02-22 23:00 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-02-23 0:45 ` Paul Moore [this message]
2013-02-23 23:43 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-02-25 16:55 ` Paul Moore
2013-02-25 18:02 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-02-25 21:05 ` Paul Moore
2013-02-25 23:06 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-02-26 21:21 ` LSM stacking and the network access controls (was: AF_VSOCK and the LSMs) Paul Moore
2013-02-26 23:12 ` LSM stacking and the network access controls Casey Schaufler
2013-02-27 16:43 ` Paul Moore
2013-02-27 16:51 ` Casey Schaufler
2013-02-27 17:31 ` Paul Moore
2013-02-27 17:40 ` Casey Schaufler
[not found] ` <888679886.3769933.1361573683299.JavaMail.root@vmware.com>
2013-02-23 0:27 ` AF_VSOCK and the LSMs Paul Moore
[not found] ` <512B12EA.1000003@redhat.com>
2013-02-25 15:06 ` Paul Moore
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=1968537.V0Fsdryuo8@sifl \
--to=pmoore@redhat.com \
--cc=acking@vmware.com \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=kraxel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).