Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [2.6.20.17 review 00/58] 2.6.20.17 -stable review | | From | Stephen Smalley <> | | Date | Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:42:54 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 09:36 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 06:23 -0700, James Morris wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > > > > > I got a problem with SELinux > > > http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/console.log > > > http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.20.17-rc1/stable-config > > > > Please set > > CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_ENABLE_SECMARK_DEFAULT=n > > > > You don't have complete policy for the new network controls, which are not > > enabled by default and not integreated fully into distros yet. > > Still, that denial shouldn't be against kernel_t unless he has iptables > SECMARK rules that assign that value. > > It's the change to the skb allocator - no longer clears up through > truesize and thus secmark is garbage initially. That would apply to > mainline too.
Oops, never mind - tail still follows secmark, so that shouldn't matter. So I'm not sure why we are getting a bad value for secmark here - should be initialized to zero and never modified unless there is an iptables secmark rule.
-- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |