[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1492007701.3881.10.camel@tycho.nsa.gov>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:35:01 -0400
From: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
To: Sebastien Buisson <sbuisson.ddn@...il.com>,
Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>
Cc: selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, william.c.roberts@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Sebastien Buisson <sbuisson@....com>, james.l.morris@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selinux: add selinux_is_enforced() function
On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 15:30 +0200, Sebastien Buisson wrote:
> 2017-04-12 13:55 GMT+02:00 Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>:
> > As currently written this code isn't something we would want to
> > merge
> > upstream for two important reasons:
> >
> > * No clear user of this functionality. There needs to be a well
> > defined user of this functionality in the kernel.
>
> The use case for this new functionality (and the other one) is
> getting
> SELinux information from the Lustre client code in kernel space.
> Latest patch can be accessed at:
> https://review.whamcloud.com/24421
> Actual user is sptlrpc_get_sepol() function in
> lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/sec.c file.
> This code will be pushed to the upstream kernel as soon as it is
> landed into Lustre master branch.
How are you using this SELinux information in the kernel and/or in
userspace? What's the purpose of it? What are you comparing it
against? Why do you care if it changes?
Note btw that the notion of a policy name/type and the policy file path
is purely a userspace construct and shouldn't be embedded in your
kernel code. Android for example doesn't follow that convention at
all; their SELinux policy file is simply /sepolicy. On modern kernels,
you can always read the currently loaded policy from the kernel itself
via /sys/fs/selinux/policy (formerly just /selinux/policy).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists