lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: SMACK netfilter smacklabel socket match
Date

Am 11.12.2008 um 01:03 schrieb Casey Schaufler:

>
>>
>> I just tried this out. But one thing makes me wonder if I had
>> understood what it should do.
>> The syntax for /smack/slhost is IP[/MASK] LABEL.
>> When I give one host (in my case generously 0.0.0.0/0 *g*) a label
>> what is the significance of the @ label?
>> First I used the _ label here which had the effect that everything
>> seems to work but labeled processes still produced labeled packet
>> which got slaughtered in different ways and degrees over the
>> internet.
>> If I gave my slhost the @ label my machine was offline and did not
>> even get pings out locally.
>>
>> I get the feeling I did not understand the concept yet.
>> Sorry but if you don't mind giving me a hint...
>>
>
> OK, Paul and I knocked our heads together until we got the behavior
> and
> interfaces ironed out if not to our mutual satisfaction at least to a
> workable level. Paul's next tree:
>
> % git clone git://git.infradead.org/users/pcmoore/lblnet-2.6_next

Nice, I'm eager to try that out.

>
>
> has the current version. There are a couple interesting things going
> on.
>
> - /smack/nltype is gone. It never lived up to its promise and is no
> longer required to determine the labeling scheme.
> - /smack/netlabel replaces the earlier /smack/slhost because it
> better
> describes what it gets used for.
> - The "@" label (pronounced "web") has been added to the list of
> special
> labels. A packet with the web label will get delivered anywhere. A
> network address specified to have the web label can be written
> to by
> any process. Processes can not have the web label.
> - An incoming packet from an address in the netlabel list that has
> a CIPSO
> label attached will still use the label from the CIPSO packet.
> - An unlabeled packet coming from an address in the netlabel list
> will be
> given the label associated with that address.
> - A process that wants to send a packet to an address on the list
> needs
> write access to the label associated with that address. The
> packet will
> be sent unlabeled if it is allowed.
>
>

I guess the question will be, can the /smack/netlabel network also be
0.0.0.0/0?
I know, that's not how it was meant to be used, but that's what would
solve my problems with outgoing labeled packets.

However, I will try this out...
Thanks

Regards
Tilman


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-11 11:27    [W:0.090 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site