> CIPSO
> ------
>      MA: Paul is still on vacation.
>      GW: That was mostly a question for Irena, is it going to make it in
> beta? IR: It is in rawhide and marked as a beta blocker; means it needs to
> go through reviews and either accepted or rejected. if accepted it'll be
> part of beta 1, if rejected then it'll be part of beta 2. The decision will
> be made tomorrow or Thursday
>      GW: how will secmark be supported? Stephen Smalley posted something
> about having some problems with it. what's RH position on secmark when
> using evaluated configurations. Is it going to be a must have, or will we
> be working around it. This is with respect to node and net-if, mostly a
> net-if issue. whether we really need these controls in the evaluated
> configuration. This maybe a mailing list question, not sure if anyone here
> knows the answer.
>      IB: I don't have an answer, so I would sat put on the list
>      SH: are those even needed. we already have controls
>      GW: Right, and that's why I am not convinced we need it. this is more
> like a firewall type control
>      JN: I don't know if there is a way to specify anything, you are either
> all CIPSO or not. Sometimes that was a problem for us
>      GW: right, so you use firewall to control that.
>      JN: no, with if-sec some hosts are multilevel, some single level, with
>       CIPSO, it's all or nothing. It might have been addressed in later
>       version but I'm not sure.
>      GW: so you don't have the granularity you need
>      JN: right

The NetLabel code has the ability to specify CIPSO configuration on a 
per-domain basis, not a per-host basis.  This is due to a limitation in the 
existing LSM hooks and is not likely to change unless the LSM hooks change.

For those of you using the latest versions of the netlabel_tools you can 
specify specific per-domain CIPSO configurations with the following command 
line (for older versions replace "map" with "mgmt"):

 # netlabelctl map add domain:<domain> protocol:cipsov4,<doi>

An example for the "unlabeled_t" domain using CIPSO doi #8 would be:

 # netlabelctl map add domain:unlabeled_t protocol:cipsov4,8

When a socket is created it's type is checked against the configured NetLabel 
per-domain rules and if a match is found it is used, if there are no matches 
the default NetLabel rule is used.  The default NetLabel rule is configured 
with the following command line:

 # netlabelctl map add default protocol:cipsov4,<doi>

-- 
paul moore
linux security @ hp

--
redhat-lspp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-lspp

Reply via email to