Re: [PATCH] remove sys_security

[Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:10, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>Any idea if security identifiers change with each syscall?
> >>
> >>If not, a lot of the xxx_secure syscalls could go away...
> >
> > None of them can go away.
> >
> > Security identifiers are for the operation you perform.  For example
> > open_secure() is so that you can specify the security context for a new
> > file that you are creating.  connect_secure() is used to specify the
> > security context of the socket you want to connect to.  In the default
> > setup the only way that connect_secure() and open_secure() can use the
> > same SID is for unix domain sockets (which are labeled with file types). 
> > A TCP connection will be to a process, the SID of a process is not a
> > valid type label for a file.
> >
> > lstat_secure(), recv_secure() and others are used to retrieve the
> > security context of the file, network message, etc.
>
> What specific information differs per-operation, such that security
> identifiers cannot be stored internally inside a file handle?

My previous message obviously wasn't clear enough.

When you want to read or set the SID of a file handle then you need to pass in 
a SID pointer or a SID.

This is what the *_secure() system calls do, they set a SID or read a SID.

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page