On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 06:09:10PM -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > In speaking with upstart upstream, I understand that the argument against > > linking to libselinux is that, as the kernel is neutral wrt the choice of > > LSM, the init process should be also. Linking it against libselinux would > > not be LSM-neutral.
> Could you perhaps expand on this a bit? The patch I submitted by > no means makes upstart require SELinux, nor does it preclude supporting > other security modules. Indeed, any other LSM support that is needed > can still be patched in. I think that we could get an upstart that > support all LSM's natively, as opposed to supporting none, at very > little added in the way of maintenance overhead. Given the difference in how kernels vs. init daemons are usually administered as part of a system, I think the runtime impact of supporting multiple LSMs in init is much more significant than supporting multiple LSMs in the kernel. I don't think we want init to have shared lib deps for each of the available LSMs. > > And you don't have to use an initramfs; the same result could be > > achieved with a shim init on the root filesystem that does nothing but > > set up the SELinux context correctly and then exec upstart. > err, does that mean sham init? "shim" is the word I mean. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
