Preferred subj= with multiple LSMs

[James Morris]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Paul Moore wrote:

> > We've never had to think about having general rules on
> > what security modules do before, because with only one
> > active each could do whatever it wanted without fear of
> > conflict. If there is already a character that none of
> > the existing modules use, how would it be wrong to
> > reserve it?
> 
> "We've never had to think about having general rules on what security
> modules do before..."
> 
> We famously haven't imposed restrictions on the label format before
> now, and this seems like a pretty poor reason to start.

Agreed.


-- 
James Morris
<jmorris at namei.org>