On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 07:04:57PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote:
quoted text
> There are several things here. I've spoken to several people about this
> and the belief I've gotten from most of them is that a recommended
> attribute is how this is to be transported. The NFSv4 spec people will
> probably say that if you want xattr like functionality for NFSv4 use
> named attributes. For us this is not an option since we require
> semantics to label on create/open and the only way we can do this is by
> adding a recommended attribute. The create/open calls in NFSv4 takes a
> list of attributes to use on create as part of the request. I really
> don't see a difference between the security blob and the
> username/groupname that NFSv4 currently uses. Also there is a good
> chance that we will need to translate labels at some point (read future
> work).

Then use the existing side-band protocol and ignore the NFSv4 spec
group.  They're <skip colourful language here> anyway.

quoted text
> > Wow, that's rude even to someone as direct as me.  Casey is the only
> > other person having an in-tree LSM, and I think his input in this
> > area is important.  But if not I as a VFS person can happily give
> > you my "no" for the current version from the VFS point of view.
> 
> I can only speak for myself but honestly I've only seen Casey act
> confrontational to this idea from the beginning. There is absolutely
> nothing in here that is SELinux specific, tecnically its not even MAC
> specific. I said from the beginning that this was perhaps not the best
> name and we are willing to change it

And changing the name and minor details is exactly what Casey requested.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html