On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 19:01 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 18:55 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 11:40 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > > > Right now secmark has lots of direct selinux calls. Use all LSM calls and > > > remove all SELinux specific knowledge. The only SELinux specific knowledge > > > we leave is the mode. The only point is to make sure that other LSMs at > > > least test this generic code before they assume it works. (They may also > > > have to make changes if they do not represent labels as strings) > > > > I'm sure you have, but I just want to make sure - you've tested this > > change (and the others for that matter) against the existing iptables > > userspace to make sure everything still works, right? > > I did. The only patch which needs userspace changes is the exporting of > secctx over netlink. It appears the current userspace tools just > ignores unknown field types. I have a patch to userspace to tell it > about the new field and will send it after the kernel patch goes in. Okay, that's good. Is the existing, i.e. unmodified, userspace still able set a Secmark with your patches applied? That is the part I'm most concerned about right now ... -- paul moore linux @ hp -- 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.
