[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 04/15] security: Add Linux Security Modules hook for AF_BUS sockets
    On Friday, June 29, 2012 05:45:43 PM Vincent Sanders wrote:
    > From: Javier Martinez Canillas <>
    > AF_BUS implements a security hook bus_connect() to be used by LSM to
    > enforce connectivity security policies.
    > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <>
    > Signed-off-by: Vincent Sanders <>

    In future postings, please reorder the patchset so that this patch (and the
    LSM specific patches) are applied after the actual AF_BUS implementation
    (patch 08/15 in this patchset). This makes it easier to quickly understand
    how the LSM hooks/implementation interacts with the AF_BUS code.

    A good rule of thumb that I try to follow when submitting large patchsets is
    that each patch should contain code that won't be optimized away during the
    build because there is no caller. Sometimes that isn't possible without
    making things overly awkward, but in this particular case it shouldn't cause a

    > ---
    > include/linux/security.h | 11 +++++++++++
    > security/capability.c | 7 +++++++
    > security/security.c | 7 +++++++
    > 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
    > diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
    > index 4e5a73c..d30dc4a 100644
    > --- a/include/linux/security.h
    > +++ b/include/linux/security.h


    > +static inline int security_bus_connect(struct socket *sock,
    > + struct sock *other,
    > + struct sock *newsk)
    > +{
    > + return 0;
    > +}
    > +

    Other than the AF_UNIX specific name, is there a reason why you chose not to
    reuse the unix_stream_connect() LSM hook? The arguments are the same, and
    based on an initial quick review of the SELinux hook implementations they
    appear to do almost identical things; the permissions are different but it
    should be trivial to make that conditional on the parent socket's address
    family (SELinux does similar things with other socket operations). Looking at
    the Smack implementation, I don't think it would be a problem there either
    (CC'd Casey for his thoughts).

    I'm still reviewing the rest of the AF_BUS patches but wanted to ask this now
    in case I was missing something.

    paul moore

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-07-09 21:01    [W:0.034 / U:25.084 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site