On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:21 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Stephen Smalley ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:38 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Ok, with the attached patch SELinux seems to work correctly. You'll
> > > probably want to make it a little prettier :) Note I have NOT ran the
> > > ltp tests for correctness. I'll do some performance runs, though
> > > unfortunately can't do so on ppc right now.
> >
> > Note that the selinux tests there _only_ test the SELinux checking. So
> > if these changes interfere with proper stacking of SELinux with
> > capabilities, that won't show up there.
>
> Sorry, I'm not parsing that?
e.g. if secondary_ops->capable is null, the SELinux tests aren't going
to show that, because they will still see that the SELinux permission
checks are working correctly. They only test failure/success for the
SELinux permission checks, not for the capability checks, so if you
unhook capabilities, they won't notice.
--
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |