[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] Extended Attributes for Security Modules

* frm "04/17/03 13:30:59 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
** Stephen Smalley ( wrote:
*> On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 18:02, richard offer wrote:
*> > I can see your reasons for the single attribute (known quantity for
*> > production systems), but think its better at this stage to experiment
*> > with multiple attributes and see how people use them before forcing
*> > everyone to a single standard. It allows small steps rather than force
*> > everyone to make a single large one.
*> Per-module attribute names create no incentive for the security module
*> writers to provide a consistent API and guarantees a forked userland.
* This is the core issue. Personally, I'd rather stick to simple strings
* and per-module attributes rooted at a common point. This is simplest
* for userspace tools. But the attribute namespace is effectively flat,
* so it's a question of simplicity for locating the attributes. A simple
* getxattr(2) vs. a listxattr(2) plus multiple getxattr(2). Unfortunately,
* this points at a single standard name I think...

Good point. Okay you've conviced me enough that while I don't agree more
than 51%, I'm at least going to shut up until the next time.

Would it make sense to have a single "backup/restore security label" tool
that is distributed alongside LSM rather than relying on each module writer
developing their own.

* thanks,
* -chris


Richard Offer Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI
"Specialization is for insects"

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.047 / U:8.168 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site