![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi, On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 19:42, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 02:35:59PM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > The idea of using separate attribute names for each security module was > > already discussed at length when I posted the original RFC, and I've > > already made the case that this is not desirable. Please see the > > earlier discussion. > > No. It's not acceptable that the same ondisk structure has a different > meaning depending on loaded modules. If the xattrs have a different > meaning they _must_ have a different name. I'm not convinced --- I don't see much value in trying to preserve MAC semantics over load/unload of different security modules, so for sanity the important thing is just to be able to detect whether a security xattr "belongs" to the current module or not. That can be done with a simple prefix in the xattr value itself. Trying to make multiple MAC labels coexist in different xattrs seems to have little use. --Stephen - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:35 [W:0.385 / U:0.060 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||