Re: New to LSM list. A few questions.

Cliffe wrote: So I thought I would introduce myself. Is this mailing list an appropriate place to ask a few questions (and later discuss the resulting LSM)? Sure. I have read two papers about LSM [1, 2] which give a good foundation of LSM, and the Linux Journal root plug example article, and

Re: New to LSM list. A few questions.

On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 16:46 +0800, Cliffe wrote: G’day, I am a PhD candidate. My research project will involve implementing an experimental access control model as a LSM. I have some programming background (I teach intro to C and Java); however, I am new to kernel programming. So I

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do mnt-user = current-fsuid, then for the special case we pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a place to do that? Would it be a no-no to use 'data' for a non-fs-specific arg?

[ANNOUNCE] UidBind LSM 0.3

Hi all, this is the new release of UidBind LSM: http://projects.unbit.it/uidbind/ This new version adds support for gid and a new configfs item named 'all' Unconfigured port will fallback to 'all' item (if available) A patch for vanilla 2.6.21 is available on the website -- Roberto De

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do mnt-user = current-fsuid, then for the special case we pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a place to do that? Would it be a no-no to use 'data' for a

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do mnt-user = current-fsuid, then for the special case we pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a place to do that? Would it

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will remain unchanged? Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added to -mm, did some cosmetic code changes, and updated the patch headers. There's one

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will remain unchanged? Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added to -mm, did some cosmetic code