On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:01 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On 24/09/10 22:45, Eric Paris wrote:
> > @@ -172,4 +173,11 @@ enum ctattr_help {
> > };
> > #define CTA_HELP_MAX (__CTA_HELP_MAX - 1)
> >
> > +enum ctattr_secctx {
> > + CTA_SECCTX_UNSPEC,
> > + CTA_SECCTX_NAME,
> > + __CTA_SECCTX_MAX
> > +};
> > +#define CTA_SECCTX_MAX (__CTA_SECCTX_MAX - 1)
>
> I guess that you have included this nest for consistency with CTA_HELP.
> My question: do you think that we'll include more attributes in that
> nest in the future? Otherwise, I would remove that nest and put
> CTA_SECCTX_NAME in the first level, since the nest would increase the
> message size.
My initial thought was that you were right (and I did just copy the
CTA_HELP implementation), but now I've decided that I like that nest. I
have no idea what future representation an LSM might use. The only 2
LSMs that make sense to use this interface SELinux and SMACK both use a
string, but I don't know why we have to limit it to that....
-Eric
--
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.
