Re: [RFC] Allow LSM to use IP address/port number.

2007-07-09 Thread David Miller
From: Tetsuo Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:33:01 +0900 > @@ -649,8 +660,16 @@ int sock_recvmsg(struct socket *sock, st > init_sync_kiocb(&iocb, NULL); > iocb.private = &siocb; > ret = __sock_recvmsg(&iocb, sock, msg, size, flags); > - if (-EIOCBQUEUED ==

Re: [RFC] Allow LSM to use IP address/port number.

2007-07-09 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Hello. Thank you for your comment. David Miller wrote: > I don't think it's such a hot idea to return errors if the > wait_on_sync_kiocb() has returned success. My patch may return errors for non-wait_on_sync_kiocb() case too. Are you saying only wait_on_sync_kiocb() case is bad? If so, could yo

Re: [RFC] Allow LSM to use IP address/port number. (was Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add post accept()/recvmsg() hooks.)

2007-07-09 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Hello. > > This thread is from http://marc.info/?t=11834645705&r=1&w=2 . > > I want to use tcp_wrapper-like filtering using LSM. The appropriate way to do this would be via netfilter queuing to userspace, as already suggested by Paul Moore. -- J

Re: [RFC] Allow LSM to use IP address/port number.

2007-07-09 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > It drops messages from unwanted IP address/ports. > (To be exact, it doesn't drop, it just tells userland process > not to use received messages by returning errors.) This is broken. You need to properly fail the network operation and ensure that the pee

Re: [RFC] Allow LSM to use IP address/port number.

2007-07-09 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 18:50:27 -0400 (EDT) James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > It drops messages from unwanted IP address/ports. > > (To be exact, it doesn't drop, it just tells userland process > > not to use received messages by returning errors.

Re: [RFC] Allow LSM to use IP address/port number.

2007-07-09 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > Isn't it better to hook into existing netfilter infrastructure somehow? Yes, it has been suggested several times. -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body o

Re: [RFC] Allow LSM to use IP address/port number.

2007-07-09 Thread Tetsuo Handa
Thank you for your comment. I have a question regarding netfilter infrastructure. I want to filter messages using "task_struct->security". Can the netfilter's queuing to userspace feature get a list of "struct task_struct" who shares a socket that is going to receive incoming messages? My approa

Re: What kind of feature does New LSM security model need?

2007-07-09 Thread Kazuki Omo(Company)
Dear, Sir, Thanks for your response and I'm very sorry for my late response. Firstly, I have to introduce myself. I'm trying to promote SELinux in Japan from 2002 (almost 5-years.). And I started up SELinux SI/training/support business in my company from 2005. #Also, I'm a member or LIDS dev