Re: [PATCH v14 5/6] LSM: SO_PEERSEC configuration options

[Paul Moore]

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 08:45:52 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >> --- 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.

Perfect ;)

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/