[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185798467.15215.12.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:27:47 -0400
From: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To: David Chinner <dgc@....com>
Cc: 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, 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.
--
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency
-
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists