On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Would you consider patches that address this as part of the Multiple > LSM work? I wouldn't be doing the security server integration as that > would be outside the scope of the effort, but I consider the namespace > issue to be in scope. I won't bother if you aren't open to it. No, sadly I think a rename patch would need to be part of a larger cleanup/integration effort; otherwise it just looks like a lot of churn for minimal benefit. I understand that is probably looks significant within the work you are doing to stack LSMs, but considering how rare/unique that work is, I don't think this is problem many people are likely to run into on a regular basis. -- 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.
