On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 03:02:44PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 5/11/2011 12:56 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:14:40AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > >> I would prefer /sys/security for all LSMs, but if SELinux goes with /sys/fs > >> Smack will likely follow on the theory that mirroring the current dominant > >> LSM is more likely to please the masses than doing what the greatest number > >> of LSMs are doing. > > Is smack going to create its own filesystem like selinux has, or is it > > going to use securityfs? If securityfs, then stick with what you have. > > If you are going to create a new one, I'd be glad to work with you to > > add anything you might need to securityfs first, but if that doesn't > > work out, then yes, you could use /sys/fs/ for your new one. > > Smack already has a smackfs and, like SELinux, recommends it be mounted > in the file system root (/smack as /selinux).
That's not good, I'd recommend moving it, based on the original thread here. /sys/fs/smack is good, or /sys/security/smack is fine, your choice. greg k-h _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
