--- Tetsuo Handa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > Quoting Tetsuo:
> > > > So, my approach is not using security context associated with a socket
> > > > but security context associated with a process.
> > Isn't the socket context derived from the process context?
> Not so regarding my case.
>
> static int smack_sk_alloc_security(struct sock *sk, int family, gfp_t
> priority)
> {
> sk->sk_security = current->security;
> return 0;
> }
>
> will not help what I want to do.
> So, I'm not planning to use "sk->sk_security".
Before you go too far down this path please note that the quoted
code is bad* because back pointers from sockets to tasks can't be
reliable. See later versions for more reasonable behavior.
> I'm planning to use "current->security" at accept()/recvmsg() time.
The delivery of packets and the completion of these syscalls are
related but independent events. Be careful about the relationship
between the events and the placement of your checks.
----
* Stephen had good comments on the details on list earlier.
Casey Schaufler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
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
