From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264196AbTDWSc4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:32:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264197AbTDWSc4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:32:56 -0400 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([195.224.96.167]:13324 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264196AbTDWScz (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:32:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 19:45:01 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Stephen Smalley , Linus Torvalds , "Ted Ts'o" , Andreas Gruenbacher , Stephen Tweedie , lkml , lsm Subject: Re: [PATCH] Extended Attributes for Security Modules against 2.5.68 Message-ID: <20030423194501.B5295@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Stephen Smalley , Linus Torvalds , Ted Ts'o , Andreas Gruenbacher , Stephen Tweedie , lkml , lsm References: <1051120322.14761.95.camel@moss-huskers.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20030423191749.A4244@infradead.org> <20030423112548.B15094@figure1.int.wirex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030423112548.B15094@figure1.int.wirex.com>; from chris@wirex.com on Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 11:25:49AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 11:25:49AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > It's really a namespace issue for user apps trying to deal with xattrs. Yes. > Being able to display the xattrs associated with a file in sane way, > like getxattr(path, "system.security", ...). Otherwise something like > listxattr() then gettxttr(... "system.security.[blah]" ...). Total > freeform naming is a headache for userspace to deal with. Esp. since we > don't want to teach all userland tools about each individual module/policy. Randomly userland shouldn't deal with these xattrs. Remember you are talking about the ondisk represenation of your labelling - nothing but the labelling tools should ever touch it. > There were a couple proposals to use common root like "system.security." > (or the trusted namespace which was discussed in earlier threads). > > Would you still prefer module specific naming? Personally I give a damn about the actual naming. Just make sure that each name has a unique meaning associated with it.