From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261591AbVGaESD (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:18:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261602AbVGaESD (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:18:03 -0400 Received: from cerebus.immunix.com ([198.145.28.33]:41678 "EHLO ermintrude.int.immunix.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261591AbVGaESB (ORCPT ); Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:18:01 -0400 Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:13:34 -0700 From: Tony Jones To: serge@hallyn.com Cc: Steve Beattie , Tony Jones , serue@us.ibm.com, lkml , Chris Wright , Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Andrew Morton , Michael Halcrow Subject: Re: [patch 0/15] lsm stacking v0.3: intro Message-ID: <20050731041334.GA20780@immunix.com> References: <20050727181732.GA22483@serge.austin.ibm.com> <20050730050701.GA22901@immunix.com> <20050730190222.GA12473@vino.hallyn.com> <20050730201852.GA8223@immunix.com> <20050731032226.GC25629@immunix.com> <20050731034409.GA17120@vino.hallyn.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050731034409.GA17120@vino.hallyn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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