Re: [PATCH 3/5] cr: add generic LSM c/r support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > I know, I know,  I should come up with a better name.  But while
> > an selinux context would be
> >
> >   root_u:root_r:root_t
> >
> > the blob I have to checkpoint for a task would perhaps be
> >
> >   root_u:root_r:root_t:::null:::null::null:::user_u:serge_r:serge_t:::null
> >   
> 
> What you really want is a textual representation of the security blob
> if I read this correctly.

Exactly.

>  Seems like you could call this either a
> "blob string" or a "context collection" or a "checkpoint string".

Object security state?  "Foss" for full object security state?

I suspect I'll default to blob...

-serge

--
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.

[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux