The secmark "one user" policy

[Casey Schaufler]

On 6/26/2017 12:54 AM, José Bollo wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 11:05:24 -0700
> Casey Schaufler <casey at schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/2017 2:41 AM, James Morris wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>  
>>>> On 6/22/2017 8:12 PM, James Morris wrote:  
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> The combination of SELinux, Smack, AppArmor and/or TOMOYO is not
>>>>>> the goal so much as the test case. MAC was the coolest possible
>>>>>> technology in 1990. We've implemented it. I don't see anyone
>>>>>> doing a new MAC implementation. I *do* see security modules that
>>>>>> implement other security models in the pipeline. Some of these
>>>>>> need to maintain state, which means using security blobs in the
>>>>>> LSM architecture. Some of these models will want to use secmarks
>>>>>> to implement socket based controls.  
>>>>> Where are these LSMs and where are the discussions about their
>>>>> LSM API needs?   
>>>> LandLock, CaitSith, LoadPin (now in), Checmate, HardChroot,
>>>> PTAGS, SimpleFlow, SafeName, WhiteEgret, shebang, and S.A.R.A.
>>>> have all been discussed on the LSM list in the past two years.  
>>> Which of these need to use secmarks to implement socket controls?  
>> PTAGS doesn't, but will need to do so to be complete.
> Hello Casey,
>
> The very sleepy PTAGS is suddently awaken (at least one ear :^).
>
> In my mind, PTAGS is dealing with processes. When packets are filtered,
> the only revelent info is the emitter process. At the moment, I don't
> see valuable situation where mediation isn't explicit thus faking origin
> isn't needed.
>
> So I would really like to understand your vision here. What do I miss?

My thought is that getting the tags of the process on the other
end of a network connection seems like a valuable facility.

>
> Best regards
> José
>
> PS. I reworked the TUI (Task Unic Id) and have something valuable now.
> I haven't submitted it because I wanted to include a kind of FS library
> to provide /proc like features. But it is a nightmare to find a minute
> to work on this challenging part. I should really abandon that and work
> on TUI + PTAGS y basta.
>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>> linux-security-module" in the body of a message to
>> majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
>> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html