[PATCH v2 1/5] selinux:Remove direct references to policydb.

peter enderborg peter.enderborg at sony.com
Tue Apr 3 11:41:27 UTC 2018

On 02/01/2018 04:55 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:17 AM, peter enderborg
> <peter.enderborg at sony.com> wrote:
>> On 01/30/2018 02:46 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 15:32 +0100, peter.enderborg at sony.com wrote:
>>>> From: Peter Enderborg <peter.enderborg at sony.com>
>>>> To be able to use rcu locks we seed to address the policydb
>>>> though a pointer. This preparation removes the export of the
>>>> policydb and send pointers to it through parameter agruments.
>>> Just for reference, I have a patch series that does this not only for
>>> the policydb, sidtab, and class/perm mapping, but for all of the
>>> SELinux global state, see:
>>> https://github.com/stephensmalley/selinux-kernel/tree/selinuxns
>>> and in particular
>>> https://github.com/stephensmalley/selinux-kernel/commit/c10d90b43cd720c8f8aab51007e805bf7c4f10d2
>>> https://github.com/stephensmalley/selinux-kernel/commit/ec038a64173d56a331423b6d1564b801f0915afc
>>> https://github.com/stephensmalley/selinux-kernel/commit/97aa5d7a05e4458bc4562c47d8f7bc4f56fbfefd
>>> Those first three patches should have no effect on SELinux behavior.
>>> They need to be re-based to latest selinux next branch (some minor
>>> conflict resolution required) but I was waiting for that to advance to
>>> something 4.15-rcX based.  I could however re-base it now if desired.
>> I read that as that you want me to rebase the patches on that tree? Seems to
>> be partly prepared but lot of changes.  Is it a moving target?
> Stephen is being nice and not throwing me under the bus, but I'm most
> likely the problem here.
> Last summer/fall Stephen and I had a discussion about SELinux
> namespacing and we talked about some of the preparatory work that
> needed to be done before the namespacing work could be started.  The
> namespacing work is obviously off topic for the work you are doing,
> but a big part of the necessary cleanup work was the consolidation and
> encapsulation of the various SELinux global state variables.  At the
> time I encouraged Stephen to post this work as I felt it would be
> useful independent of the namespacing work, and I think we are seeing
> one reason why with the work you are doing.
> I owe Stephen some review/feedback on his namespace patchset, at the
> very least the global state work that he referenced with you.  I'm
> just getting back from some traveling over the past week or so, let me
> review the first few patches in Stephen's patchset with the idea of
> getting those merged and then you can use those as a base for your
> work.  From what I can see, I imagine that having Stephen's work as a
> base would be helpful for you.  I'll make a promise to get Stephen
> feedback by the end of next week at the latest; I'll aim for sooner.
> Does that help?
Hi. Need follow up on this. I dont see any progress on this lately.  Is there any
conclusions about namespace thing in kernel code yet?

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

More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list