[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CA11F36.2090705@netfilter.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:48:22 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
CC: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...ho.nsa.gov,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, sds@...ho.nsa.gov,
jengelh@...ozas.de, 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 27/09/10 21:25, Eric Paris wrote:
> I see it as having 3 options. lets assume was have a packet with
> selinux sid=121 and selinux context=packet_t. We can
>
> 1) secmark=121 secctx=packet_t
> This continues to send secmark like we do and people might continue to
> be baffled by the 121.
>
> 2) secmark=1 secctx=packet_t
> This sends a secmark field to userspace so if an application which
> reads this exists (I doubt such an application actually exists in in the
> real world) it will still get all of the information it got before but
> noone will be baffled by what the number means. 1/0 is pretty obvious.
In netlink, we can obsolete fields without breaking backward
compatibility. Applications parsing the /proc entry may break, but they
should use stable interfaces (like netlink) instead.
BTW, if we finally stop including CTA_SECMARK in netlink messages,
please add a small comment on the right of the definition in
nfnetlink_conntrack.h (something like /* obsolete */ or /* unused */).
Thanks!
--
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