Re: [PATCH v14 3/6] LSM: Explicit individual LSM associations

[Paul Moore]

On Thursday, August 01, 2013 03:15:00 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 8/1/2013 2:30 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:52:14 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >> On 8/1/2013 11:35 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> Okay, so if I understand everything correctly, there are no new entries
> >>> in
> >>> /proc relating specifically to NetLabel, XFRM, or Secmark; although
> >>> there
> >>> are new LSM specific entries for the general /proc entries that exist
> >>> now.  Yes?
> >> 
> >> That's correct.
> >> 
> >> There is /sys/kernel/security/present, which tells you which LSM is going
> >> to show up in /proc/.../attr/current.
> >> 
> >> Should we have /sys/kernel/security/XFRM, /sys/kernel/security/secmark,
> >> /sys/kernel/security/NetLabel and /sys/kernel/security/SO_PEERCRED?
> > 
> > Maybe.
> > 
> > While they might be helpful, I'm not 100% certain they are needed and
> > further I'm not sure they are the "right" solution at this point.  Any
> > thoughts, both for and against, are welcome.
> 
> What might be a more correct solution? Assuming, of course, that there's
> a real problem.

Well, like I said, I'm not sure they are needed in the first place, in other 
words, I'm not sure there is a problem.  As for the correct solution, I think 
we need to understand the problem, if there is one, before we can understand 
the solution.

How is that for an answer? :)

In short, I think we are best leaving them out until something comes along 
which requires that we add the /proc entries.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com

--
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/