On Monday 17 December 2007 3:05:37 pm Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 11:47 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > We should probably have different permissions for the interface and node
> > cases. Take the example of an admin who is only interested in enforcing
> > interface controls and not node controls. They would most likely write
> > the following policy rule to nullify the node check ...
> >
> > allow unlabeled_t peer_t:peer egress;
> >
> > ... which would end up applying to both the interface and node checks
> > because they use the same permission. I'm thinking we should split the
> > permissions like this:
> >
> > allow netif_t peer_t:peer if_egress;
> > allow netnode_t peer_t: peer node_egress;
> >
> > ... and do something similar for the ingress side. Thoughts?
>
> That starts to sound a lot like using netif and node classes instead of
> the peer class.
> allow peer_t netif_t:netif egress;
> allow peer_t netnode_t:node egress;
Thinking about this some more ... egress/ingress make sense from an interface
point of view but they sound out of place from a node point of view. After
all, you are not "egressing" to a node, to are "sending to" a node. The same
thing applies in the opposite direction, you don't "ingress" from a node,
you "receive from" a node. With that in mind I'm thinking of going with the
following:
allow netif_t peer_t:peer { ingress egress };
allow netnode_t peer_t:peer { recv_from send_to };
Thoughts? Should I just forget all this and use the peer label as a subject
label?
--
paul moore
linux security @ hp
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
