From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759425Ab0I0RCl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:02:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57716 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756287Ab0I0RCk (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:02:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] secmark: export binary yes/no rather than kernel internal secid From: Eric Paris To: James Morris Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, jengelh@medozas.de, paul.moore@hp.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, netfilter@vger.kernel.org, mr.dash.four@googlemail.com In-Reply-To: References: <20100924204517.28355.42822.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <20100924204531.28355.20320.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:01:36 -0400 Message-ID: <1285606896.2815.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 10:50 +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Eric Paris wrote: > For the reasons above, I think the secctx string needs to be exported in > addition to this rather than instead of. I won't argue, I don't agree with your reasoning, but I'm not opposed to this result. We have 3 competing suggestions: Jan suggested we: completely eliminate secmark from procfs+netlink and only export secctx in netlink. Eric suggested we: completely eliminate secmark from procfs+netlink and then export secctx in procfs+netlink sounds like James suggested we: continue to export meaningless and confusing secmark from procfs+netlink and then export secctx in procfs+netlink as well. I'm going to implement James' idea and resend the patch series. Any strong objections? -Eric