Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module

Tony Jones
2005-07-03T19:13:36Z

On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 02:53:17PM -0400, James Morris wrote:

> It might be worth thinking about a more general securityfs as part of LSM,
> to be used by stacker and LSM modules. SELinux could use this instead of
> managing its own selinuxfs.

Good idea. In the case of stacked modules each with a custom fs, having them
be part of a common hierarchy makes a lot of sense.

I'm assuming you are advocating for adding LSM support to provide some level
of consistency in presentation rather than it _just_ being a new mount point
for every module to live under?

Take the discussion to the LSM list?

Thanks!

Tony