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

[John Johansen]

On 05/11/2011 04:52 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> 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?
> 
AppArmor, Tomoyo and IMA all create their own subdirectoy under securityfs
so this should not be a problem