From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Casey Schaufler Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] cr: debug security_checkpoint_header and security_may_restart Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:31:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4AA55183.4020407@schaufler-ca.com> References: <20090903222824.GB27377@us.ibm.com> <20090903222853.GA27556@us.ibm.com> <4AA0A3AE.9040106@schaufler-ca.com> <20090904134611.GA11508@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090904134611.GA11508@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Oren Laadan , Linux Containers , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, SELinux , Casey Schaufler List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@schaufler-ca.com): > >> Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> >>> This patch, for debugging only, introduces a silly admin-controlled >>> 'policy version' for smack. By default the version is 1. An >>> admin (with CAP_MAC_ADMIN) can change it by echoing a new value >>> into /smack/version. >>> >>> >> The scheme you have suggested is just one step off of completely >> acceptable for real. More detail below, but if you make the "version" >> a string instead of a number I'm happy with it. In particular, a >> string that would itself be a valid Smack label makes everything >> really simple. >> > > Presumably at many sites the version will be a unique string not > used as a label anywhere else. That's ok? > > >> It would take me a few days, but if you're not in a real hurry or >> you're lazier than I am (yeah, right) I could provide a patch that >> does it. Or, if I haven't been completely incomprehensible, you >> could do a revision. >> > > Heh, I'm in no hurry. I'll mark this to do midway next week, if > you haven't gotten around to it first. Thanks! > I hate to be a bother, but what tree are you basing these patches on? Suspect that I missed a round of patches along the way, and can't apply the ones I do have. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from msux-gh1-uea02.nsa.gov (msux-gh1-uea02.nsa.gov [63.239.67.2]) by tarius.tycho.ncsc.mil (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n87IVjMB007734 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:31:45 -0400 Received: from smtp106.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msux-gh1-uea02.nsa.gov (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id n87IX45W001482 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:33:04 GMT Message-ID: <4AA55183.4020407@schaufler-ca.com> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:31:31 -0700 From: Casey Schaufler MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Serge E. Hallyn" CC: Oren Laadan , Linux Containers , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, SELinux , Casey Schaufler Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] cr: debug security_checkpoint_header and security_may_restart References: <20090903222824.GB27377@us.ibm.com> <20090903222853.GA27556@us.ibm.com> <4AA0A3AE.9040106@schaufler-ca.com> <20090904134611.GA11508@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20090904134611.GA11508@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@schaufler-ca.com): > >> Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> >>> This patch, for debugging only, introduces a silly admin-controlled >>> 'policy version' for smack. By default the version is 1. An >>> admin (with CAP_MAC_ADMIN) can change it by echoing a new value >>> into /smack/version. >>> >>> >> The scheme you have suggested is just one step off of completely >> acceptable for real. More detail below, but if you make the "version" >> a string instead of a number I'm happy with it. In particular, a >> string that would itself be a valid Smack label makes everything >> really simple. >> > > Presumably at many sites the version will be a unique string not > used as a label anywhere else. That's ok? > > >> It would take me a few days, but if you're not in a real hurry or >> you're lazier than I am (yeah, right) I could provide a patch that >> does it. Or, if I haven't been completely incomprehensible, you >> could do a revision. >> > > Heh, I'm in no hurry. I'll mark this to do midway next week, if > you haven't gotten around to it first. Thanks! > I hate to be a bother, but what tree are you basing these patches on? Suspect that I missed a round of patches along the way, and can't apply the ones I do have. -- 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.