From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262742AbTDRBAB (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:00:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262749AbTDRBAA (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:00:00 -0400 Received: from cerebus.wirex.com ([65.102.14.138]:44531 "EHLO figure1.int.wirex.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262742AbTDRA76 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 20:59:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 18:07:45 -0700 From: Chris Wright To: richard offer Cc: Stephen Smalley , Linus Torvalds , "Ted Ts'o" , Stephen Tweedie , lkml , Andreas Gruenbacher , lsm Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Extended Attributes for Security Modules Message-ID: <20030417180745.J29431@figure1.int.wirex.com> Mail-Followup-To: richard offer , Stephen Smalley , Linus Torvalds , Ted Ts'o , Stephen Tweedie , lkml , Andreas Gruenbacher , lsm 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> <1020130000.1050612787@changeling.engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1020130000.1050612787@changeling.engr.sgi.com>; from offer@sgi.com on Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 01:53:07PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * richard offer (offer@sgi.com) wrote: > * frm chris@wirex.com "04/17/03 13:30:59 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /' > * > * 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. Heh, it's a valid question. I like per-module attributes, but I don't think they are as nice for userland tools. I don't acutally like encoding namesapce into the attribute value, but I'm not sure the alternative is much different/better. > 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. You mean to ensure that labels are accumulated rather than replaced? Could be useful I suppose. thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net