Re: [PATCH 2/5] secmark: make secmark object handling generic

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:14 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:01 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 18:55 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 11:40 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > > > > Right now secmark has lots of direct selinux calls.  Use all LSM calls and
> > > > > remove all SELinux specific knowledge.  The only SELinux specific knowledge
> > > > > we leave is the mode.  The only point is to make sure that other LSMs at
> > > > > least test this generic code before they assume it works.  (They may also
> > > > > have to make changes if they do not represent labels as strings)
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sure you have, but I just want to make sure - you've tested this
> > > > change (and the others for that matter) against the existing iptables
> > > > userspace to make sure everything still works, right?
> > > 
> > > I did.  The only patch which needs userspace changes is the exporting of
> > > secctx over netlink.  It appears the current userspace tools just
> > > ignores unknown field types.  I have a patch to userspace to tell it
> > > about the new field and will send it after the kernel patch goes in.
> > 
> > Okay, that's good.  Is the existing, i.e. unmodified, userspace still
> > able set a Secmark with your patches applied?  That is the part I'm most
> > concerned about right now ...
> 
> It is.  Everything about secmark is still userspace ABI compatible.
> (except what I indicated)

Excellent, I figured that was the case but just wanted to see it in
writing :)

Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul.moore@xxxxxx>

-- 
paul moore
linux @ hp


--
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/