From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Grubb Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] selinux: support deferred mapping of contexts Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 14:45:46 -0400 Message-ID: <200805071445.47044.sgrubb@redhat.com> References: <1210002195.25678.678.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <200805071248.13439.sgrubb@redhat.com> <1210180842.6434.98.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1210180842.6434.98.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Stephen Smalley Cc: Eric Paris , linux-audit@redhat.com, James Morris , selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Wednesday 07 May 2008 13:20:42 Stephen Smalley wrote: > then we'd need to define two new fields, one to correspond > to the real/raw context string corresponding to the scontext and one to > correspond to the real/raw context string corresponding to the tcontext= . > And they would only be present if the scontext and/or tcontext happened > to be invalid under current policy. =C2=A0Maybe "rscontext" and "rtcont= ext" > if we don't think that will confuse existing userspace Sounds good to me. I don't think either names you mentioned are taken. -Steve From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Grubb To: Stephen Smalley Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] selinux: support deferred mapping of contexts Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 14:45:46 -0400 Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, Eric Paris , James Morris , selinux@tycho.nsa.gov References: <1210002195.25678.678.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <200805071248.13439.sgrubb@redhat.com> <1210180842.6434.98.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> In-Reply-To: <1210180842.6434.98.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <200805071445.47044.sgrubb@redhat.com> Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov On Wednesday 07 May 2008 13:20:42 Stephen Smalley wrote: > then we'd need to define two new fields, one to correspond > to the real/raw context string corresponding to the scontext and one to > correspond to the real/raw context string corresponding to the tcontext. > And they would only be present if the scontext and/or tcontext happened > to be invalid under current policy.  Maybe "rscontext" and "rtcontext" > if we don't think that will confuse existing userspace Sounds good to me. I don't think either names you mentioned are taken. -Steve -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.