Re: [PATCH v14 3/6] LSM: Explicit individual LSM associations

From: Casey Schaufler
Date: Thu Aug 01 2013 - 18:15:09 EST

On 8/1/2013 2:30 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:52:14 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 8/1/2013 11:35 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> Okay, so if I understand everything correctly, there are no new entries in
>>> /proc relating specifically to NetLabel, XFRM, or Secmark; although there
>>> are new LSM specific entries for the general /proc entries that exist
>>> now. Yes?
>> That's correct.
>> There is /sys/kernel/security/present, which tells you which LSM is going to
>> show up in /proc/.../attr/current.
>> Should we have /sys/kernel/security/XFRM, /sys/kernel/security/secmark,
>> /sys/kernel/security/NetLabel and /sys/kernel/security/SO_PEERCRED?
> Maybe.
> While they might be helpful, I'm not 100% certain they are needed and further
> I'm not sure they are the "right" solution at this point. Any thoughts, both
> for and against, are welcome.
What might be a more correct solution? Assuming, of course, that there's
a real problem.

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