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

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Tuesday 2010-09-28 00:48, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:

>On 27/09/10 21:25, Eric Paris wrote:
>> I see it as having 3 options.  lets assume was have a packet with
>> selinux sid=121 and selinux context=packet_t.  We can
>> 
>> 1) secmark=121 secctx=packet_t
>> 	This continues to send secmark like we do and people might continue to
>> be baffled by the 121.
>> 
>> 2) secmark=1 secctx=packet_t
>> 	This sends a secmark field to userspace so if an application which
>> reads this exists (I doubt such an application actually exists in in the
>> real world) it will still get all of the information it got before but
>> noone will be baffled by what the number means.  1/0 is pretty obvious.
>
>In netlink, we can obsolete fields without breaking backward
>compatibility. Applications parsing the /proc entry may break, but they
>should use stable interfaces (like netlink) instead.

Which I take as a pro stance on not adding any more procfs fields.

>BTW, if we finally stop including CTA_SECMARK in netlink messages,
>please add a small comment on the right of the definition in
>nfnetlink_conntrack.h (something like /* obsolete */ or /* unused */).
>Thanks!

Mh, I prefer "obsolete". A lot of times in the kernel there is "unused" 
and it reads like, "if it's unused, why is is there?" (it /is/ used, 
though as a filler).
--
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/