Paul Moore wrote: > Venkat Yekkirala wrote: > >>The following replaces unlabeled_t with network_t for >>better characterization of the flow out/in checks in >>SELinux, as well as to allow for mls packets to >>flow out/in from the network since network_t would allow >>the full range of MLS labels, as opposed to the unlabeled init sid >>that only allows system-hi. >> >>Signed-off-by: Venkat Yekkirala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>--- >>This is an incremental patch the secid-reconcilation v4 patchset. >> >>--- net-2.6.sid3/security/selinux/hooks.c 2006-10-01 15:43:12.000000000 >>-0500 >>+++ net-2.6/security/selinux/hooks.c 2006-10-03 16:43:21.000000000 -0500 >>@@ -3703,7 +3703,8 @@ static int selinux_skb_flow_in(struct sk >> err = selinux_xfrm_decode_session(skb, &xfrm_sid, 0); >> BUG_ON(err); >> >>- err = avc_has_perm(xfrm_sid, skb->secmark, SECCLASS_PACKET, >>+ err = avc_has_perm(xfrm_sid, skb->secmark? : SECINITSID_NETMSG, >>+ SECCLASS_PACKET, >> PACKET__FLOW_IN, NULL); >> if (err) >> goto out; >>@@ -3900,7 +3901,7 @@ static unsigned int selinux_ip_postroute >> skb->secmark = sksec->sid; >> } >> } >>- err = avc_has_perm(skb->secmark, SECINITSID_UNLABELED, >>+ err = avc_has_perm(skb->secmark, SECINITSID_NETMSG, >> SECCLASS_PACKET, PACKET__FLOW_OUT, &ad); >> } >> out: > > > Considering the above change, I wonder if it would also make sense to > update the secmark to SECINITSID_UNLABELED in the abscence of any > external labeling (labeled IPsec or NetLabel)? >
Ungh, my apologies ... I meant to say "SECINITSID_NETMSG" *not* "SECINITSID_UNLABELED". -- paul moore linux security @ hp - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
