On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:15:17 PDT, Chris Wright <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> * Andreas Dilger (email@example.com) wrote:
> > The only reason to use a common "system.security" is if the actual data
> > stored therein was usable by more than a single security module.
> Or, as mentioned, if you care to print out the label with standard
The requirement that things like ls, find, cp and so on know where to look
for these things trumps any "purity of labels" arguments.
In addition, a case can be made that different modules *should* use the
same name - because that way when you're re-labelling a file system for
a new security module, you can actually *detect* old crufty conflicting
labels added by some previous module.
"Warning: file %s was already labelled with attribute %s"
If you do as Chris suggests, you can't implement this in a clean manner.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/