Re: [patch 0/15] lsm stacking v0.3: intro

[serge]

Quoting Steve Beattie (sbeattie@xxxxxxx):
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 01:18:52PM -0700, Tony Jones wrote:
> > # cat /proc/2322/attr/current 
> > unconstrained (subdomain)
> > foobar (foobar)
> > 
> > # ps -Z -p 2322
> > LABEL                             PID TTY          TIME CMD
> > unconstrained                    2322 ttyS0    00:00:00 bash
> 
> Actually, no, it is the space preceding the open paren that is invalid;
> see this patch for the expanded allowed character set in procps 3.2.5:
> 
>   http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/procps/procps/ps/output.c?r1=1.51&r2=1.52
> 
> When I discussed this with Albert Cahalan, he *strongly* objected to
> allowing whitespace in security contexts, as he felt it would break
> scripts that parsed 'ps -Z' output.

Right, I thought this was actually a feature :)  This is how ps
continues to show expected output under stacker.  Given naturally limited
space, showing output for multiple modules may not be a good idea.  If
you want more detail, you go to /proc/pid/attr/current...

Clearly this is limiting, but then so is the one line per process you
get with ps - "fixing" that is obviously not acceptable.  Is there
another suggestion for how to handle this, in such a way that ps would
show info for >1 module?  Is there any example where the current
behavior is actually a problem - two modules which it makes sense to
stack, which both need to give output under ps?

thanks,
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/