Re: [PATCH] security: move LSM xattrnames to xattr.h

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 09:19 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 12, 2010 09:06:09 am Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 14:14 +0300, Ozan Çağlayan wrote:
> > > Cuma 02 Temmuz 2010 günü (saat 03:16:01) James Morris şunları yazmıştı:
> > > > On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > > > Make the security extended attributes names global. Updated to move
> > > > > the remaining Smack xattrs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@us.ibm.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > This drops
> > > 
> > > #define XATTR_CAPS_SUFFIX "capability"
> > > #define XATTR_NAME_CAPS XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX XATTR_CAPS_SUFFIX
> > > 
> > > definitions from capability.h and puts them in xattr.h's #ifdef
> > > __KERNEL__ section making them invisible to userspace like libcap-ng
> > > causing build failures.
> > > 
> > > Am I wrong?
> > 
> > You're correct.  It's the same reason that cap-ng.c has to define
> > 'security'.
> > 
> > #ifdef VFS_CAP_U32
> >  #include <attr/xattr.h>
> >  #define XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX "security."
> > 
> > Am cc'ing Steve.
> 
> So does this mean I need to provide more definitions for libcap-ng to work with 
> future kernels or are you asking my opinion? My opinion is that if user space 
> needs it to work correctly, please let it be available so I don't have to make 
> my own define which may be inaccurate one day.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Steve

Before making any changes to the kernel xattr.h, I want to understand
the reason for two xattr.h files, one in /usr/include/linux/ and the
other in /usr/include/xattr/.  /usr/include/linux/xattr.h contains those
elements not defined as __kernel__, while /usr/include/xattr/xattr.h
contains that and other definitions.  Will changing the kernel xattr.h
version change both?

As long as we're making this change, should 'security' also be defined
outside of the __kernel__ definitions?

thanks,

Mimi