lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v14 5/6] LSM: SO_PEERSEC configuration options
On 7/30/2013 2:47 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:32:23 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH v14 5/6] LSM: SO_PEERSEC configuration options
>>
>> Refine the handling of SO_PEERSEC to enable legacy
>> user space runtimes, Fedora in particular, when running
>> with multiple LSMs that are capable of providing information
>> using getsockopt(). This introduces an additional configuration
>> option, and requires that the default be the legacy behavior.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> ...
>
>> --- a/security/Kconfig
>> +++ b/security/Kconfig
>> @@ -157,17 +157,49 @@ config SECMARK_LSM
>> help
>> The name of the LSM to use with the networking secmark
>>
>> -config SECURITY_PLAIN_CONTEXT
>> - bool "Backward compatable contexts without lsm='value' formatting"
>> - depends on SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK
>> - default y
>> +choice
>> + depends on SECURITY && (SECURITY_SELINUX || SECURITY_SMACK)
>> + prompt "Peersec LSM"
>> + default PEERSEC_SECURITY_FIRST
>> +
>> help
>> - Without this value set security context strings will
>> - include the name of the lsm with which they are associated
>> - even if there is only one LSM that uses security contexts.
>> - This matches the way contexts were handled before it was
>> - possible to have multiple concurrent security modules.
>> - If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer Y.
>> + Select the security module that will send attribute
>> + information in IP header options.
>> + Most SELinux configurations do not take advantage
>> + of Netlabel, while all Smack configurations do. Unless
>> + there is a need to do otherwise chose Smack in preference
>> + to SELinux.
> I'm not hugely in love with the help text; the first sentence seems to be all
> that is needed, the second seems unnecessary and not exactly fair to the LSMs.

I can take out the "friendly advice". What it really should say
is more on the lines of:

If you have gotten to the point where you have to make
this decision you should probably call it a work day, go
home, have a nice drink and spend some time with a loved
one. In the morning take a good hard look at your network
configuration. You may end up with a different security
policies being enforced with IPv4 and IPv6 communications.

>
>> + config PEERSEC_SECURITY_FIRST
>> + bool "First LSM providing for SO_PEERSEC"
>> + help
>> + Provide the first available LSM's information with SO_PEERSEC
>> +
>> + config PEERSEC_SECURITY_ALL
>> + bool "Use lsm='value'lsm='value' format"
>> + help
>> + Provide all available security information in SO_PEERSEC
>> +
>> + config PEERSEC_SECURITY_SELINUX
>> + bool "SELinux" if SECURITY_SELINUX=y
>> + help
>> + Provide SELinux context with SO_PEERSEC
>> +
>> + config PEERSEC_SECURITY_SMACK
>> + bool "Smack" if SECURITY_SMACK=y
>> + help
>> + Provide Smack labels with SO_PEERSEC
>> +
>> +endchoice
>> +
>> +config PEERSEC_LSM
>> + string
>> + default "smack" if PEERSEC_SECURITY_SMACK
>> + default "selinux" if PEERSEC_SECURITY_SELINUX
>> + default "(all)" if PEERSEC_SECURITY_ALL
>> + default "(first)"
>> + help
>> + The name of the LSM to use with Netlabel
>>
>> config SECURITY_PATH
>> bool "Security hooks for pathname based access control"



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-31 18:01    [W:0.071 / U:2.360 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site