From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] Security: Add hook to get full maclabel xattr
	name
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:50:06 -0800
Message-ID: <1204246206.7363.13.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org>
References: <746385.69480.qm@web36611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <1204227035.31790.207.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
	 <20080228234850.GA25829@infradead.org>
	 <1204243497.2715.24.camel@moss-terrapins.epoch.ncsc.mil>
	 <20080229003937.GA16343@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Dave Quigley <dpquigl@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>, casey@schaufler-ca.com,
	viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, bfields@fieldses.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Return-path: <linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080229003937.GA16343@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org


On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 19:39 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 07:04:57PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote:
> > There are several things here. I've spoken to several people about this
> > and the belief I've gotten from most of them is that a recommended
> > attribute is how this is to be transported. The NFSv4 spec people will
> > probably say that if you want xattr like functionality for NFSv4 use
> > named attributes. For us this is not an option since we require
> > semantics to label on create/open and the only way we can do this is by
> > adding a recommended attribute. The create/open calls in NFSv4 takes a
> > list of attributes to use on create as part of the request. I really
> > don't see a difference between the security blob and the
> > username/groupname that NFSv4 currently uses. Also there is a good
> > chance that we will need to translate labels at some point (read future
> > work).
> 
> Then use the existing side-band protocol and ignore the NFSv4 spec
> group.  They're <skip colourful language here> anyway.

As I've told you several times before: we're _NOT_ putting private
ioctl^Hxattrs onto the wire. If the protocol can't be described in an
RFC, then it isn't going in no matter what expletive you choose to
use...