On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:14 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:06 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:01 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 18:55 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 11:40 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > > > > Right now secmark has lots of direct selinux calls. Use all LSM calls and > > > > > remove all SELinux specific knowledge. The only SELinux specific knowledge > > > > > we leave is the mode. The only point is to make sure that other LSMs at > > > > > least test this generic code before they assume it works. (They may also > > > > > have to make changes if they do not represent labels as strings) > > > > > > > > I'm sure you have, but I just want to make sure - you've tested this > > > > change (and the others for that matter) against the existing iptables > > > > userspace to make sure everything still works, right? > > > > > > I did. The only patch which needs userspace changes is the exporting of > > > secctx over netlink. It appears the current userspace tools just > > > ignores unknown field types. I have a patch to userspace to tell it > > > about the new field and will send it after the kernel patch goes in. > > > > Okay, that's good. Is the existing, i.e. unmodified, userspace still > > able set a Secmark with your patches applied? That is the part I'm most > > concerned about right now ... > > It is. Everything about secmark is still userspace ABI compatible. > (except what I indicated) Excellent, I figured that was the case but just wanted to see it in writing :) Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul.moore@xxxxxx> -- paul moore linux @ hp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
