Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761582AbYB2BJe (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:09:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760717AbYB2BAZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:00:25 -0500 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]:32797 "EHLO pat.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758795AbYB2BAV (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:00:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] Security: Add hook to get full maclabel xattr name From: Trond Myklebust To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Dave Quigley , Stephen Smalley , casey@schaufler-ca.com, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, bfields@fieldses.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LSM List In-Reply-To: <20080229005113.GA24087@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> <20080229003937.GA16343@infradead.org> <1204246206.7363.13.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20080229005113.GA24087@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:00:05 -0800 Message-Id: <1204246805.7363.23.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Resend: resent X-UiO-ClamAV-Virus: No X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, none) X-UiO-Scanned: D547A02AA1BBC6AA53DB973EC2311A5D5FB72711 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.10.9 spam_score: 0 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 7143572 max/h 8345 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1014 Lines: 23 On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 19:51 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 04:50:06PM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > As I've told you several times before: we're _NOT_ putting private > > ioctl^Hxattrs onto the wire. If the protocol can't be described in an > > RFC, then it isn't going in no matter what expletive you choose to > > use... > > It's as unstructured as the named attributes already in. Or file data > for that matter. Describing what is supposed to be a security mechanism in a structured fashion for use in a protocol should hardly be an impossible task (and AFAICS, Dave & co are making good progress in doing so). If it is, then that casts serious doubt on the validity of the security model... There should be no need for ioctls. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/