On 11/14/2012 08:59, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 08:50:17AM -0500, David Quigley wrote:
On 11/14/2012 08:45, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:32:53PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote:
>>Ok so if you go to http://www.selinuxproject.org/git you will see
a
>>repo for lnfs and lnfs-patchset. The instructions at
>>http://www.selinuxproject.org/page/Labeled_NFS give you a better
>>indication on how to pull the trees. I've attached a patch for NFS
>>utils which gives support for security_label/nosecurity_label in
>>your /etc/exports file.
>
>Do we need an export option? Is there any reason not to make the
>feature available whenever there's support available for it?
I guess we could build it in but I figured an export option allowed
someone to turn off security labeling support if they didn't want it
on that export. What happens to clients when the server returns a
cap that they don't support? Do they mask the bits out?
Yeah, they should just ignore it.
While this is still experimental it's still nice to have a way to
turn
this on and off at runtime so people can experiment without having to
have it on for everyone all the time. But
nfsd_supported_minorversion
should be sufficient for that.
(I don't think your patches actually dealt yet with the fact that
this
is part of minor version 2? Another for the todo list.)
--b.
If we use nfsd_supported_minorversion which I'm guessing is an export
option what happens if someone wants to use other 4.2 features but not
labeling? I'll switch it over if you guys want it done that way, I think
though that this provides more flexibility. Although anything that makes
me carry around fewer patches is good in my book.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
