Message-ID: <4552B5C1.8040007@hp.com> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:59:45 -0500 From: Paul Moore MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Morris Cc: vyekkirala@TrustedCS.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, sds@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mlsxfrm: Various fixes References: <000501c70342$83b9df70$cc0a010a@tcssec.com> <4552A9AC.3060708@hp.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Paul Moore wrote: > >>1. Functionality is available right now, no additional kernel changes needed >>2. No special handling for localhost, I tend to like the idea of having >>consistent behavior for all addresses/interfaces > > I don't agree. SO_PEERSEC should always just work for loopback, just like > with Unix sockets. My main concern is that we would have "special" behavior for a single IP address and that this behavior wouldn't be subject to the same labeled networking configuration/management methods as the rest of the address space. Treating localhost like any other IP address seems consistent with the way we handle Unix sockets - we don't have any special handling depending on the path of the socket. -- paul moore linux security @ hp -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.