From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755898Ab3HAVai (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:30:38 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]:54943 "EHLO mail-qa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752496Ab3HAVag (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 17:30:36 -0400 From: Paul Moore To: Casey Schaufler Cc: LKLM , LSM , SE Linux , James Morris , John Johansen , Eric Paris , Tetsuo Handa , Kees Cook Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 3/6] LSM: Explicit individual LSM associations Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:30:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1875185.QyWUQZtYy0@sifl> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.10.2-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <51FAAE5E.4060801@schaufler-ca.com> References: <51F16CFB.6040603@schaufler-ca.com> <1991449.AFacmybWrj@sifl> <51FAAE5E.4060801@schaufler-ca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:52:14 AM Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 8/1/2013 11:35 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > Okay, so if I understand everything correctly, there are no new entries in > > /proc relating specifically to NetLabel, XFRM, or Secmark; although there > > are new LSM specific entries for the general /proc entries that exist > > now. Yes? > > That's correct. > > There is /sys/kernel/security/present, which tells you which LSM is going to > show up in /proc/.../attr/current. > > Should we have /sys/kernel/security/XFRM, /sys/kernel/security/secmark, > /sys/kernel/security/NetLabel and /sys/kernel/security/SO_PEERCRED? Maybe. While they might be helpful, I'm not 100% certain they are needed and further I'm not sure they are the "right" solution at this point. Any thoughts, both for and against, are welcome. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com