From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261410AbVGCTNg (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:13:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261492AbVGCTNg (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:13:36 -0400 Received: from cerebus.immunix.com ([198.145.28.33]:53467 "EHLO ermintrude.int.immunix.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261410AbVGCTNe (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jul 2005 15:13:34 -0400 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:09:14 -0700 From: Tony Jones To: James Morris Cc: Tony Jones , serge@hallyn.com, Greg KH , serue@us.ibm.com, lkml , Chris Wright , Stephen Smalley , Andrew Morton , Michael Halcrow , David Safford , Reiner Sailer , Gerrit Huizenga Subject: Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module Message-ID: <20050703190914.GB30292@immunix.com> References: <20050703182505.GA29491@immunix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 02:53:17PM -0400, James Morris wrote: > It might be worth thinking about a more general securityfs as part of LSM, > to be used by stacker and LSM modules. SELinux could use this instead of > managing its own selinuxfs. Good idea. In the case of stacked modules each with a custom fs, having them be part of a common hierarchy makes a lot of sense. I'm assuming you are advocating for adding LSM support to provide some level of consistency in presentation rather than it _just_ being a new mount point for every module to live under? Take the discussion to the LSM list? Thanks! Tony