[systemd-devel] [PATCH] SELINUX: add /sys/fs/selinux mount point to put selinuxfs

[Kay Sievers]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:43, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:27:59PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 15:54, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 01:22:42PM +0200, John Johansen wrote:
>> >> On 05/11/2011 03:59 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:55:24PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> >> >> On 5/10/2011 3:34 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> >> >>> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at suse.de>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> In the interest of keeping userspace from having to create new root
>> >> >>> filesystems all the time, let's follow the lead of the other in-kernel
>> >> >>> filesystems and provide a proper mount point for it in sysfs.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> For selinuxfs, this mount point should be in /sys/fs/selinux/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It seems that we might want this to be an LSM interface standard.
>> >> >> Is the call to kobject_create_and_add and associated cleanup all
>> >> >> that's required? I would want Smack to follow the convention as
>> >> >> well.
>> >> >
>> >> > You could always just create a subdir under /sys/security/ if you have
>> >> > your own filesystem, but I don't think that Smack has one, right?
>> >> >
>> >> > Is it going to get one?  If so, we might want to revisit the idea of
>> >> > securityfs if no one is actually using it...
>> >> >
>> >> resending, as this looks to have been lost
>> >>
>> >> AppArmor, IMA, and TOMOYO are using securityfs currently.
>> >
>> > Great, then it will not go anywhere.
>>
>> Just to get an idea how all this fits together. How can TPM bios and
>> IMA/AppArmor share this directory? They have their own subdirs in
>> there, or both just use the securityfs infrastructure and not their
>> own filesystem on top?
>
> Only one security module is allowed to be loaded/active at any one point
> in time, so they can't step on each other.

Right, but what I don't understand is CONFIG_TCG_TPM, which seem to
use securityfs, and is not a LSM. This and AppArmor/IMA can be used at
the same time, can't it? They share securityfs then?

Kay