Re: [PATCH 3/6] secmark: export binary yes/no rather than kernelinternal secid

[Eric Paris]

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/