On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 14:37 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 23:36 +0000, David Howells wrote: > > Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > From a config file whose pathname would be provided by libselinux (ala > > > the way in which dbusd imports contexts), or directly as a context > > > returned by a libselinux function. > > > > That sounds too SELinux specific. How do I do it so that it works for any > > LSM? > > You can't. There is no LSM for userspace; LSM specifically disavowed > any common userspace API, and that was one of our original > objections/concerns about it. > > > Is linking against libselinux is a viable option if it's not available under > > all LSM models? Is it available under all LSM models? Perhaps Casey can > > answer this one. > > Nope, they would all have their own libraries, if they have a library at > all. But that isn't your problem - your kernel interface should be > generic, and your LSM hooks should be generic, but your userspace isn't > required to be. Have a look at how many programs in the distribution > currently link against libselinux, whether directly or by dlopen'ing it. > > > > > I use to do that, but someone objected... Possibly Karl MacMillan. > > > > > > Yes, but I think I disagreed then too. > > > > So, who's right? > > Karl isn't a maintainer of the SELinux kernel code. And I had thought > that even he had reconsidered this idea after further discussion. > That's what I remember as well - I suggested the transition idea and then, after discussion, agreed that it wasn't the best approach. And, as Steve points out, it's not my call to make. Karl -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
