Re: [patch 0/15] lsm stacking v0.3: intro

[Tony Jones <tonyj@immunix.com>]

On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 10:44:09PM -0500, serge@hallyn.com wrote:
> > When I discussed this with Albert Cahalan, he *strongly* objected to
> > allowing whitespace in security contexts, as he felt it would break
> > scripts that parsed 'ps -Z' output.
> 
> Right, I thought this was actually a feature :)  This is how ps
> continues to show expected output under stacker.  Given naturally limited
> space, showing output for multiple modules may not be a good idea.  If
> you want more detail, you go to /proc/pid/attr/current...

OK. As long as you are aware of it, which it sounds like you are.

Serge, I think it should be documented as a known issue.

> Clearly this is limiting, but then so is the one line per process you
> get with ps - "fixing" that is obviously not acceptable.  Is there

Nothing jumps out at me.

> Is there any example where the current
> behavior is actually a problem - two modules which it makes sense to
> stack, which both need to give output under ps?

I don't know.  Isn't this the big negative against stacker, controlling
the composition?  pstools has clearly cast it's vote :-)

Tony