Mr Dash Four
mr.dash.four at googlemail.com
Tue Sep 21 20:08:35 UTC 2010
>>> One item to note: xt_SECMARK.c is presently using selinux-specific
>>> interfaces for mapping the security context string to a sid originally,
>>> as well as to check permissions, manage refcounts, etc. So if you use
>>> the LSM hooks for mapping the secid back to a context, there will be an
>>> inconsistency in the interface. Likely they should all be LSM hooks and
>>> both include/linux/selinux.h and security/selinux/exports.c should go
>> I found a way to alter the iptables source to get that information - see my
>> own thread on the netfilter mailing list here -
>> Whether the devs responsible for iptables/netfilter would agree to make
>> these changes I am not sure - I patched my own iptables and it works!
> I don't think that approach is right. Exporting a number at ALL is
> broken. It should only ever say the name.
I am aware of that and the proposed patch works as I did test it after
Tom released it yesterday.
As for your comment above - it is better than NOTHING.
If you think that the current scenario, when I see meaningless number in
the secmark field, helps me track the actual security context of the
listed connection, then think again, because there is NO way I could
know what number maps to which context.
Tom's patch at least gives me that mapping when I list the mangle table,
so it is a start and it works. Again, - the patch, if applied, is better
than what currently exists in iptables. Also, 'exporting a number at
all' is NOT broken - look at Tom's patch again - it does not break anything.
> I'm not on netfilter list so I can't just in, but if you cc me on a
> response to that thread I'll start responding there (hopefully soon
> with a patch)
I'll quote the above as a separate post and will cc you in - no problem.
More information about the selinux