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

[Casey Schaufler]

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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/