From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262652AbTDQUlg (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:41:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262653AbTDQUlf (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:41:35 -0400 Received: from zok.SGI.COM ([204.94.215.101]:28893 "EHLO zok.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262652AbTDQUlb (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 16:41:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:53:07 -0700 From: richard offer To: Chris Wright , Stephen Smalley cc: Linus Torvalds , lsm , "Ted Ts'o" , Stephen Tweedie , Andreas Gruenbacher , lkml Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Extended Attributes for Security Modules Message-ID: <1020130000.1050612787@changeling.engr.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20030417133059.G29431@figure1.int.wirex.com> References: <1050414107.16051.70.camel@moss-huskers.epoch.ncsc.mil> <385390000.1050425884@changeling.engr.sgi.com> <1050500841.2682.62.camel@moss-huskers.epoch.ncsc.mil> <743940000.1050530541@changeling.engr.sgi.com> <1050553474.1076.88.camel@moss-huskers.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20030417133059.G29431@figure1.int.wirex.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.0 (Linux/x86) X-HomePage: http://www.whitequeen.com/users/richard/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * frm chris@wirex.com "04/17/03 13:30:59 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /' * ** 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... 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. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Offer Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI "Specialization is for insects" _______________________________________________________________________