From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <544C3FB2.2010308@schaufler-ca.com> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:26:26 -0700 From: Casey Schaufler MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Moore Subject: Re: Functions prefixed with security_ in SELinux References: <5436CC14.2040906@schaufler-ca.com> <544AC5A6.6080200@schaufler-ca.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: LSM , SELinux List-Id: "Security-Enhanced Linux \(SELinux\) mailing list" List-Post: List-Help: On 10/25/2014 9:45 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> Would you consider patches that address this as part of the Multiple >> LSM work? I wouldn't be doing the security server integration as that >> would be outside the scope of the effort, but I consider the namespace >> issue to be in scope. I won't bother if you aren't open to it. > No, sadly I think a rename patch would need to be part of a larger > cleanup/integration effort; otherwise it just looks like a lot of > churn for minimal benefit. I understand that is probably looks > significant within the work you are doing to stack LSMs, but > considering how rare/unique that work is, I don't think this is > problem many people are likely to run into on a regular basis. OK, I shan't worry about it. I suspect that I'm the only person on the planet likely to be bothered especially much by it, and I do have enough other kittens to fry.