On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As I've been working on the multiple concurrent modules project I have > frequently encountered the use of the function prefix security_ in > SELinux specific code. I understand and appreciate that this code has > been there since the dawn of time. The LSM infrastructure also uses this > prefix, and that's where I have my concern. When I'm grubbing about for > uses of the LSM infrastructure in the SELinux code it's really quite > annoying. Would the SELinux community be open to considering the > possibility of thinking about cleaning up this bit of namespace > pollution? It surely isn't a critical issue, but it would certainly look > better. > > security_context_to_sid -> selinux_context_to_sid > > Just a thought. Sorry for the delay. I've been a bit busy and this got lost in my SELinux folder. It probably is something we should clean up, in fact we should probably take a long hard look at why we still keep the "security server" code separated from the SELinux hooks code. I understand the original reasoning, but I wonder if that still matters, especially with many Linux-isms creeping into the security server code. So to answer your question, yes, it is something I would consider, but likely only as part of a larger effort to cleanup/integrate the SELinux security server code into the Linux specific code. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
