[refpolicy] kernel_filesystem.patch

[dwalsh@redhat.com (Daniel J Walsh)]

On 06/07/2010 11:41 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 17:24 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:56:08AM -0400, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 16:17 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:00:08AM -0400, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 14:57 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 08:49:09AM -0400, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 09:41 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 09:34 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 16:23 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/SELinux/F14/kernel_filesystem.patch
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Changes for /cgroup policy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While moving the labeling of cgroup from kernel to filesystem modules
>>>>>>>>> may make sense, I'm not sure why the type and interfaces need to be
>>>>>>>>> renamed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well it is a file system?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thats not necessarily a good reason, since other pseudo filesystems
>>>>>>> exist in other modules, for good reason.  It also doesn't explain the
>>>>>>> renaming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the libcgroup suite was one of the reasons to rename. libcgroup which
>>>>>> automates cgroup management installs the /cgroup mountpoint. whilst
>>>>>> that directories content is the cgroup pseudo filesystem. So we needed
>>>>>> two types for almost the same purpose. So we choose cgroup_t for
>>>>>> libcgroups /cgroup mountpoint and we decided to rename the cgroupfs
>>>>>> pseudo fs cgroupfs
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see a need for two different types.
>>>>
>>>> I guess strictly speaking there is no need for two types. We can just
>>>> add the fc spec for /cgroup -d to filesystem.fc
>>>
>>> Thats what I had in mind.
>>
>> So.. you want cgroup_t instead of cgroupfs_t?
>
> Yes, since the filesystem is called cgroup and the cgroup_t type already
> exists to label it.
>
>> You realize that when we merge the two, that the chosen type will get
>> the mountpoint attribute even if its a directory under /cgroup?
>
> Yes.
>
I don't care either way.  Just want to get it settled.