On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 10:50 +1000, James Morris wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Eric Paris wrote: > For the reasons above, I think the secctx string needs to be exported in > addition to this rather than instead of. I won't argue, I don't agree with your reasoning, but I'm not opposed to this result. We have 3 competing suggestions: Jan suggested we: completely eliminate secmark from procfs+netlink and only export secctx in netlink. Eric suggested we: completely eliminate secmark from procfs+netlink and then export secctx in procfs+netlink sounds like James suggested we: continue to export meaningless and confusing secmark from procfs+netlink and then export secctx in procfs+netlink as well. I'm going to implement James' idea and resend the patch series. Any strong objections? -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.
