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

From: Tony Jones
Date: Sat Jul 30 2005 - 23:19:22 EST

On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 10:44:09PM -0500, serge@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 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...

OK. As long as you are aware of it, which it sounds like you are.

Serge, I think it should be documented as a known issue.

> 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

Nothing jumps out at me.

> 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?

I don't know. Isn't this the big negative against stacker, controlling
the composition? pstools has clearly cast it's vote :-)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at