On Sun, 2009-08-30 at 12:03 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > > > >> Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >> > >>> Quoting Casey Schaufler (casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > >>> > >>>> But each can be expressed as a context, can't it? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> A set of contexts (root_u:root_r:root_t:::system_u:system_r\ > >>> :system_t::...). > >>> > >>> There would be a problem if it were stored as a more > >>> structured type, and if the ->restore handler wanted to > >>> re-create an actual task_security_struct, ipc_security_struct, > >>> etc. So the last paragraph in the patch intro was just trying to > >>> explain why the intermediate layer, storing a generic string on > >>> the c/r object hash, needs to be there. The thing that is > >>> not possible is to place the actual void *security or a struct > >>> task_security_struct on the objhash. > >>> > >>> > >> Right. Now why do you need a set of contexts? > >> > > > > Because for SELinux, for instance, when checkpointing a security > > context for a task, we want to checkpoint the actual context, > > the fscreate context, the sockcreate context, keycreate context, > > and the task create (exec_create) context. > > > > My. That is quite a lot of contexts to keep track of. Doesn't Smack also have at least one case where it supports multiple distinct contexts for different purposes on a single object (e.g. sockets)? -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency -- 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.
