| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: [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" (Log in to post comments)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||