From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757678Ab3HAWSN (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 18:18:13 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.216.169]:46018 "EHLO mail-qc0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757251Ab3HAWSL (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 18:18:11 -0400 From: Paul Moore To: Casey Schaufler Cc: LKLM , LSM , SE Linux , James Morris , John Johansen , Eric Paris , Tetsuo Handa , Kees Cook Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 3/6] LSM: Explicit individual LSM associations Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 18:18:07 -0400 Message-ID: <3087749.g8XAFtub5d@sifl> User-Agent: KMail/4.10.5 (Linux/3.10.2-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <51FADDE4.8080805@schaufler-ca.com> References: <51F16CFB.6040603@schaufler-ca.com> <1875185.QyWUQZtYy0@sifl> <51FADDE4.8080805@schaufler-ca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, August 01, 2013 03:15:00 PM Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 8/1/2013 2:30 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:52:14 AM Casey Schaufler wrote: > >> On 8/1/2013 11:35 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > >>> Okay, so if I understand everything correctly, there are no new entries > >>> in > >>> /proc relating specifically to NetLabel, XFRM, or Secmark; although > >>> there > >>> are new LSM specific entries for the general /proc entries that exist > >>> now. Yes? > >> > >> That's correct. > >> > >> There is /sys/kernel/security/present, which tells you which LSM is going > >> to show up in /proc/.../attr/current. > >> > >> Should we have /sys/kernel/security/XFRM, /sys/kernel/security/secmark, > >> /sys/kernel/security/NetLabel and /sys/kernel/security/SO_PEERCRED? > > > > Maybe. > > > > While they might be helpful, I'm not 100% certain they are needed and > > further I'm not sure they are the "right" solution at this point. Any > > thoughts, both for and against, are welcome. > > What might be a more correct solution? Assuming, of course, that there's > a real problem. Well, like I said, I'm not sure they are needed in the first place, in other words, I'm not sure there is a problem. As for the correct solution, I think we need to understand the problem, if there is one, before we can understand the solution. How is that for an answer? :) In short, I think we are best leaving them out until something comes along which requires that we add the /proc entries. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com