Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751265AbdFUTEF (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:04:05 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f68.google.com ([209.85.215.68]:34040 "EHLO mail-lf0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751098AbdFUTED (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:04:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [108.49.102.27] In-Reply-To: <20170621114812.6aa3f62e@vega.skynet.aixah.de> References: <20170619213348.2970-1-aranea@aixah.de> <1497989063.12069.18.camel@tycho.nsa.gov> <20170621114812.6aa3f62e@vega.skynet.aixah.de> From: Paul Moore Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 15:04:01 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: Assign proper class to PF_UNIX/SOCK_RAW sockets To: Luis Ressel Cc: Stephen Smalley , James Morris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1604 Lines: 39 On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:43:38 -0400 > Paul Moore wrote: > >> Considering where we are at with respect to the merge window, let's >> shelve this for now and I'll merge it after the next merge window >> closes. In all likelihood I'll be sending selinux/next up to James >> later this week and I'd like this to sit in linux-next for longer than >> a few days. > > That means the change will land in 4.14 at the earliest, right? (Just > out of curiosity.) That's correct. We are currently working towards a v4.12 release in Linus' tree, the upcoming merge window will be for v4.13, and things merged into selinux/next after that merge window will be for v4.14. > By the way, refpolicy only grants "socket" permissions to a handful of > domains, all of which also have the corresponding "unix_dgram_socket" > permissions. The fedora policy does the same (according to Stephen); > this only leaves custom policies to be potentially affected by this > change. While custom policies are definitely in the minority, we still need to do out best not to break them without warning. > Given that the SOCK_RAW->SOCK_DGRAM translation is obscure enough not to > be documented anywhere outside the kernel sources, I doubt there are > many users of it, anyway. You very well may be right, I just felt that such a change requires more than a week in the selinux/next tree. Thank you for your patch, it's in the queue and I'll be merging it into the selinux/next branch in a few weeks. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com