[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/26] Add a secctx_to_secid() LSM hook to go along with the existing

--- Paul Moore <> wrote:

> On Tuesday 15 January 2008 8:05:27 pm James Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, David Howells wrote:
> > > secid_to_secctx() LSM hook. This patch also includes the SELinux
> > > implementation for this hook.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <>
> > > Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <>
> >
> > This is useful in its own right, and I would like to push it upstream for
> > 2.6.24 unless there are any objections.
> Isn't it a bit late in 2.6.24 to add new functionality, especially when there
> isn't an in-tree user for it in 2.6.24?
> You are right, there are several users of this function currently under
> development but I'm pretty sure all of them are targeting 2.6.25 or greater.
> With that in mind, I think the prudent thing to is to wait and push this
> upstream for 2.6.25.

I concur with Paul. I had to delete the message I was composing because
it said exactly the same thing.

I do think that we need to put some thought into what a secid
really is and what a secctx ought to look like what with multiple
user cropping up for them. To date audit is the only out-of-LSM
user of the secctx, and assumes it's a printable text string, but
if cacheing is going to be using it as well we're approaching the
secctx being a "general" interface, and hence a part of the LSM
proper. Probably makes sense to include something in the LSM
documentation. With luck, someone who spells better than I will
beat me to it, but such an update is on my todo list.

Casey Schaufler

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-16 18:11    [W:0.097 / U:12.720 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site