On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 15:17 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:05:05AM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > Nice, getting rid of this is a very good step formwards. Unfortunately > > > we have another copy of this junk in > > > security/selinux/selinuxfs.c:sel_remove_entries() which would need the > > > same treatment. > > > > Can't just be dropped completely for selinux - we need a way to drop > > obsolete entries from the prior policy when we load a new policy. > > > > Is the only real problem here the clearing of f_op? If so, we can > > likely remove that from sel_remove_entries() without harm, and fix the > > checks for it to use something more reliable. > > f_op removal is the biggest issue. It can't really work and this is the > last instance. But in general having some half-backed attempts at revoke > is never a good idea.
Yes, we're not trying to revoke per se, but just re-populate a set of directories that represent elements of policy state on a policy reload. /selinux/booleans is one example - a directory with one entry per policy boolean defined by the policy. Old directory tree gets torn down on each policy reload and replaced. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/