On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 07:04:57PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote: > There are several things here. I've spoken to several people about this > and the belief I've gotten from most of them is that a recommended > attribute is how this is to be transported. The NFSv4 spec people will > probably say that if you want xattr like functionality for NFSv4 use > named attributes. For us this is not an option since we require > semantics to label on create/open and the only way we can do this is by > adding a recommended attribute. The create/open calls in NFSv4 takes a > list of attributes to use on create as part of the request. I really > don't see a difference between the security blob and the > username/groupname that NFSv4 currently uses. Also there is a good > chance that we will need to translate labels at some point (read future > work). Then use the existing side-band protocol and ignore the NFSv4 spec group. They're <skip colourful language here> anyway. > > Wow, that's rude even to someone as direct as me. Casey is the only > > other person having an in-tree LSM, and I think his input in this > > area is important. But if not I as a VFS person can happily give > > you my "no" for the current version from the VFS point of view. > > I can only speak for myself but honestly I've only seen Casey act > confrontational to this idea from the beginning. There is absolutely > nothing in here that is SELinux specific, tecnically its not even MAC > specific. I said from the beginning that this was perhaps not the best > name and we are willing to change it And changing the name and minor details is exactly what Casey requested. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
