[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1285606896.2815.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:01:36 -0400
From: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
jengelh@...ozas.de, paul.moore@...com, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netfilter@...r.kernel.org,
mr.dash.four@...glemail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] secmark: export binary yes/no rather than kernel
internal secid
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 10:50 +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Eric Paris wrote:
> For the reasons above, I think the secctx string needs to be exported in
> addition to this rather than instead of.
I won't argue, I don't agree with your reasoning, but I'm not opposed to
this result. We have 3 competing suggestions:
Jan suggested we:
completely eliminate secmark from procfs+netlink and only export secctx
in netlink.
Eric suggested we:
completely eliminate secmark from procfs+netlink and then export secctx
in procfs+netlink
sounds like James suggested we:
continue to export meaningless and confusing secmark from procfs+netlink
and then export secctx in procfs+netlink as well.
I'm going to implement James' idea and resend the patch series. Any
strong objections?
-Eric
--
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