From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761977AbXLMPhh (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:37:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756343AbXLMPh2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:37:28 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:41583 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755097AbXLMPh1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:37:27 -0500 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <1197557384.20226.21.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> References: <1197557384.20226.21.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1197488021.1125.138.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1197473127.1125.50.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <81862.27432.qm@web36605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <32168.1197484170@redhat.com> <668.1197499783@redhat.com> To: Stephen Smalley Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, casey@schaufler-ca.com, Karl MacMillan , viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, hch@infradead.org, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/28] SECURITY: Allow kernel services to override LSM settings for task actions [try #2] X-Mailer: MH-E 8.0.3+cvs; nmh 1.2-20070115cvs; GNU Emacs 23.0.50 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:36:59 +0000 Message-ID: <21666.1197560219@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Stephen Smalley wrote: > It is just a way of carving up the permission space, typically based on > object type, but it can essentially be arbitrary. The check in this > case seems specific to cachefiles since it is controlling an operation > on the /dev/cachefiles interface that only applies to cachefiles > internal operations, so making a cachefiles class seems reasonable. Can you specify what sort of permissions you're thinking of providing for tasks to operate on this class? Can an object of this class 'operate' on other objects, or can only process-class objects do that? How does an object of this class acquire a label? What is an object of this class? Is it a "cache"? Or were you thinking of a "module"? David