[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1865922a0711040523k2f3dac51k8db872169fd518e7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 15:23:06 +0200
From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>
To: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "Casey Schaufler" <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, akpm@...l.org,
torvalds@...l.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Smackv10: Smack rules grammar + their stateful parser
On 11/4/07, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > Still to come:
> > >
> > > - Final cleanup of smack_load_write and smack_cipso_write.
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > After agreeing with Casey on the "load" input grammar yesterday, here's
> > the final grammar and its parser (which needs more testing):
> >
> > A Smack Rule in an "egrep" format is:
> >
> > "^[:space:]*Subject[:space:]+Object[:space:]+[rwxaRWXA-]+[:space:]*\n"
> >
> > where Subject/Object strings are in the form:
> >
> > "^[^/[:space:][:cntrl:]]{1,SMK_MAXLEN}$"
>
> Can we avoid string parsers in the kernel?
>
I've suggested that at first, but (hoping not to misquote Al) Al viro
said that the parsing is simple enough and no need exists for a
user-space utility.
>
> > +static inline int isblank(char c)
> > +{
> > + return (c == ' ' || c == '\t');
> > +}
>
> This sounds like enough for 'NAK'.
>
Would you please show the reason for the NAK so I can modify the code ?
Thank you,
> Pavel,
> who still thinks smack rules should be parsed
> in userspace and compiled into selinux rules...
>
--
Ahmed S. Darwish
Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com
Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists