Re: [PATCH] procfs: add smack subdir to attrs

[Casey Schaufler]

On 6/6/2017 4:58 AM, Josà Bollo wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:59:24 -0700
> Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2017 4:38 PM, James Morris wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>  
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] procfs: add smack subdir to attrs  
>>> Is there value in this without major stacking support?  
>> Yes. If a Smack aware application reads /proc/self/attr/current
>> it has no way to know if what it sees is a Smack label or an
>> SELinux context. True, the application can look elsewhere
>> (i.e. /sys/kernel/security/lsm) to find out which is enabled.
>> But the real fix is for Smack to use a different interface
>> than SELinux. Which is what this does. True, it will be even
>> more important when/if major stacking comes in, but it is still
>> significant now, and I would like to have it regardless of
>> the future acceptance of major stacking.
> I agree that it is a nice forward movement to leave the mud.
>
> I have a subsidiary question to ask. Should we keep the name 'attr' for
> the subdirectory? It seems at least convenient but if a better name is
> valuable (security, lsm, ...) why not to switch now?

Too many things would break. It's really a matter of taste in any case.

>
> BR josÃ
>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>> linux-security-module" in the body of a message to
>> majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at
>> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>