On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 16:14 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Greg KH <g...@kroah.com> 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. > > Pretty sure we already have a securty/smack/smackfs.c .....
I must be missing something here. If you're already having to change userspace for SELinux, then why is using /sys/fs/selinux any better than /sys/kernel/security/fs/selinux | smack? The other securityfs users could continue to use /sys/kernel/security/TPM | IMA | APPARMOR |.... thanks, Mimi _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
