Re: [PATCH] xfrm_policy delete security check misplaced

2007-03-07 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:29:50 -0500 > The security hooks to check permissions to remove an xfrm_policy were > actually done after the policy was removed. Since the unlinking and > deletion are done in xfrm_policy_by* functions this moves the hooks > inside t

Re: [PATCH] xfrm_policy delete security check misplaced

2007-03-05 Thread James Morris
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Eric Paris wrote: > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More maj

RE: [PATCH] xfrm_policy delete security check misplaced

2007-03-05 Thread Eric Paris
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 11:39 -0500, James Morris wrote: > On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Venkat Yekkirala wrote: > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Acked-by: Venkat Yekkirala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What about your previous comment: > > "I guess you meant to do this here? >

RE: [PATCH] xfrm_policy delete security check misplaced

2007-03-05 Thread Venkat Yekkirala
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Acked-by: Venkat Yekkirala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What about your previous comment: > > "I guess you meant to do this here? > else if (err) > return err; " I saw that this was taken care of in patch-2 for t

RE: [PATCH] xfrm_policy delete security check misplaced

2007-03-05 Thread James Morris
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Venkat Yekkirala wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Acked-by: Venkat Yekkirala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What about your previous comment: "I guess you meant to do this here? else if (err) return err; " -- James Morris <[E

RE: [PATCH] xfrm_policy delete security check misplaced

2007-03-05 Thread Venkat Yekkirala
> Also, [Joy cc'd] deletions here needn't be audited? OK, I see the next patch addressed this :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read t

RE: [PATCH] xfrm_policy delete security check misplaced

2007-03-05 Thread Venkat Yekkirala
> @@ -2552,7 +2550,7 @@ static int pfkey_spdget(struct sock > *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, struct sadb_msg *h > return -EINVAL; > > xp = xfrm_policy_byid(XFRM_POLICY_TYPE_MAIN, dir, > pol->sadb_x_policy_id, > - hdr->sadb_msg_type == SADB_X_SPDDELETE2);

RE: [PATCH] xfrm_policy delete security check misplaced

2007-03-05 Thread Venkat Yekkirala
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Venkat Yekkirala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read t

[PATCH] xfrm_policy delete security check misplaced

2007-03-02 Thread Eric Paris
The security hooks to check permissions to remove an xfrm_policy were actually done after the policy was removed. Since the unlinking and deletion are done in xfrm_policy_by* functions this moves the hooks inside those 2 functions. There we have all the information needed to do the security check