Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:30:59 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] Extended Attributes for Security Modules |
| |
* Stephen Smalley (sds@epoch.ncsc.mil) 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...
thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - 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/
| |