[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0809250715030.5963@tundra.namei.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:18:38 +1000 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
cc: Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Toshiharu Harada <haradats@...data.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce new LSM hooks where vfsmount is available.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Kentaro Takeda (takedakn@...data.co.jp):
[please trim quoted material..]
> >
> > +config SECURITY_PATH
> > + bool "Security hooks for pathname based access control"
> > + depends on SECURITY
> > + help
> > + This enables the security hooks for pathname based access control.
> > + If enabled, a security module can use these hooks to
> > + implement pathname based access controls.
> > + If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N.
>
> Is there any reason why users should have to deal with this option?
> Would it make sense in this case to make the option and have tomoyo and
> apparmor select it?
Who are users in this case? It's probably useful as a separate option for
testing purposes and for people doing development. LSMs which depend on
it should probably still use SELECT in any case.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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