linux-ext4 - Re: [xfs-masters] [RFC: 2.6 patch] make the *FS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 2 Aug 2007 22:21:22 +1000
From:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>
To:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>, xfs-masters@....sgi.com,
	chrisw@...s-sol.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	jmorris@...ei.org, eparis@...isplace.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, jffs-dev@...s.com
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [RFC: 2.6 patch] make the *FS_SECURITY options no longer user visible

On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 08:27:47AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 09:29 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 05:02:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Please correct me if any of the following assumptions is wrong:
> > > - SELinux is currently the only user of filesystem security labels
> > >   shipped with the Linux kernel
> > > - if a user has SELinux enabled he wants his filesystems to support
> > >   security labels
> > > 
> > > Based on these assumption, it doesn't make sense to have the
> > > *FS_SECURITY user visible since we can perfectly determine automatically 
> > > when turning them on makes sense.
> > 
> > Hmmm. The code in XFS is not dependent on selinux, but this change
> > would mean that testing the security xattr namespace would require a
> > selinux enabled kernel.
> > 
> > I agree that the default for these should be "y" and selected if
> > selinux is enabled, but forcing us to use selinux enabled kernels
> > (on distro's that may not support selinux) just to test the
> > security xattr namespace is a bit of a pain.
> 
> You can enable SECURITY_SELINUX in the kernel config but still have it
> boot disabled by default via SECURITY_SELINUX_BOOTPARAM_VALUE=0.

Ok, that shouldn't cause a problem then. Objection withdrawn. ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html