I think that I am listening, and I appologize for doing
such a poor job of getting my view on the across.
Do you understand that if the functionality being proposed
is specific to a particular file system it ought to be contained
in that file system, not proposed as a part of the general
purpose interface?
The ACL funtionality over NFS could be done using general interfaces,
and there are examples (e.g. Irix) where it has been done. I
understand the rationale for the current implementation while
disagreeing with that rationale. Further, there is a major difference
between ACLs and a legitimate LSM (for MAC or DAC) in that ACLs
are a change to the Linux access control scheme (they interact with
the mode bits) whereas a legitimate LSM is strictly additional
restrictions.
I should hope then that your SELinux specific NFS server should
look at the name presented and treat it appropriately.
You're correct, you don't. You can propose anything you like.
Don't take my criticisms personally, but I think you're wrong
on this one. I don't like to see this unnecessary limitation,
the kind that could haunt the code base for years, when it seems
pretty obvious that it could be better.
Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
--
