On 7/1/2016 3:13 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 7/1/2016 12:17 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Jurgens <dani...@mellanox.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2016 1:54 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Daniel Jurgens <dani...@mellanox.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/2016 4:06 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/2016 1:42 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
>>>>>>>> index 3f6780b..e522acb 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_verbs.h
>>>>>>>> @@ -1454,6 +1454,7 @@ struct ib_qp {
>>>>>>>> void *qp_context;
>>>>>>>> u32 qp_num;
>>>>>>>> enum ib_qp_type qp_type;
>>>>>>>> + struct ib_qp_security *qp_sec;
>>>>>>> See my earlier question/comment about just using a void pointer here.
>>>>>> I think that this is in response to my comments to the
>>>>>> effect that I would like to see the LSM infrastructure
>>>>>> using the inode like (inode->i_security) to the xfrm
>>>>>> (void *) approach. I haven't been looking at the IB patches
>>>>>> too carefully to date. It's possible I have not been clear.
>>>>> My understanding at the time was that by using something other than a
>>>>> void * different security modules could maintain their own opaque blobs
>>>>> with in and keep the same prototype for the hook. It's possible I
>>>>> misunderstood you, but it made sense to me. I don't know of any plans
>>>>> for other security modules to support Infiniband, but this leaves the
>>>>> door open.
>>>> All of what you describe above can still happen with a void pointer;
>>>> in some ways it is even easier with a void pointer.
>>> If multiple security modules register an alloc_security hook for example,
>>> how would you coordinate between them to allocate the memory?
>> You worry about that in the LSM framework and hide the details behind
>> the void pointer. For example, you create an array/list of LSM
>> specific blobs and just stash a pointer to the head of the data in the
>> void pointer.
> Don't worry about it at this point. Patches pending.
> If I have to change modules to accommodate the
> infrastructure I'm not afraid to do so.
So I should revert to void* blobs? I just want to be clear before making the
change.
_______________________________________________
Selinux mailing list
Selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
To unsubscribe, send email to selinux-le...@tycho.nsa.gov.
To get help, send an email containing "help" to selinux-requ...@tycho.nsa.gov.
