From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753744AbYIXVT4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:19:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751619AbYIXVTp (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:19:45 -0400 Received: from tundra.namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:54561 "EHLO tundra.namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751211AbYIXVTo (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:19:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:18:38 +1000 (EST) From: James Morris To: "Serge E. Hallyn" cc: Kentaro Takeda , Andrew Morton , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Toshiharu Harada Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce new LSM hooks where vfsmount is available. In-Reply-To: <20080924132855.GB10756@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <48C65E9D.3070106@nttdata.co.jp> <5fb14edc0809090902m32431bf6yf518a457e410764d@mail.gmail.com> <20080910134540.45ec1272.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <48C877DE.4040402@nttdata.co.jp> <48D06865.8070602@nttdata.co.jp> <48D9F399.4070002@nttdata.co.jp> <20080924132855.GB10756@us.ibm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LRH 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Kentaro Takeda (takedakn@nttdata.co.jp): [please trim quoted material..] > > > > +config SECURITY_PATH > > + bool "Security hooks for pathname based access control" > > + depends on SECURITY > > + help > > + This enables the security hooks for pathname based access control. > > + If enabled, a security module can use these hooks to > > + implement pathname based access controls. > > + If you are unsure how to answer this question, answer N. > > Is there any reason why users should have to deal with this option? > Would it make sense in this case to make the option and have tomoyo and > apparmor select it? Who are users in this case? It's probably useful as a separate option for testing purposes and for people doing development. LSMs which depend on it should probably still use SELECT in any case. -- James Morris