From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] Security: Add hook to get full maclabel xattr name Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:39:37 -0500 Message-ID: <20080229003937.GA16343@infradead.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Stephen Smalley , casey@schaufler-ca.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, bfields@fieldses.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LSM List To: Dave Quigley Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1204243497.2715.24.camel@moss-terrapins.epoch.ncsc.mil> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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 anyway. > > Wow, that's rude even to someone as direct as me. Casey is the only > > other person having an in-tree LSM, and I think his input in this > > area is important. But if not I as a VFS person can happily give > > you my "no" for the current version from the VFS point of view. > > I can only speak for myself but honestly I've only seen Casey act > confrontational to this idea from the beginning. There is absolutely > nothing in here that is SELinux specific, tecnically its not even MAC > specific. I said from the beginning that this was perhaps not the best > name and we are willing to change it And changing the name and minor details is exactly what Casey requested.