Re: [RFC][PATCH] Extended Attributes for Security Modules

[richard offer]

* frm [e-mail] "04/17/03 13:30:59 -0700" | sed '1,$s/^/* /'
*
** Stephen Smalley ([e-mail]) wrote:
*> On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 18:02, richard offer wrote:
*> > I can see your reasons for the single attribute (known quantity for
*> > production systems), but think its better at this stage to experiment
*> > with multiple attributes and see how people use them before forcing
*> > everyone to a single standard. It allows small steps rather than force
*> > everyone to make a single large one.
*> 
*> Per-module attribute names create no incentive for the security module
*> writers to provide a consistent API and guarantees a forked userland. 
* 
* This is the core issue.  Personally, I'd rather stick to simple strings
* and per-module attributes rooted at a common point.  This is simplest
* for userspace tools.  But the attribute namespace is effectively flat,
* so it's a question of simplicity for locating the attributes.  A simple
* getxattr(2) vs. a listxattr(2) plus multiple getxattr(2).  Unfortunately,
* this points at a single standard name I think...

Good point. Okay you've conviced me enough that while I don't agree more
than 51%, I'm at least going to shut up until the next time.

Would it make sense to have a single "backup/restore security label" tool
that is distributed alongside LSM rather than relying on each module writer
developing their own.

* 
* thanks,
* -chris

richard.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Offer                     Technical Lead, Trust Technology, SGI
"Specialization is for insects"
_______________________________________________________________________