Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] Remove bogus virSecurityManagerSetProcessFDLabel method

On 08/30/2011 10:37 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >The virSecurityManagerSetProcessFDLabel method was introduced >after a mis-understanding from a conversation about SELinux >socket labelling. The virSecurityManagerSetSocketLabel method >should have been used for all such scenarios. > >* src/security/security_apparmor.c, src/security/security_apparmor.c, > src/security/security_driver.h, src/security/security_manager.c, > src/security/security_manager.h, src/security/security_selinux.c, > src/security/security_stack.c: Remove SetProcessFDLabel driver >--- >+++ b/src/security/security_apparmor.c >@@ -799,34 +799,6 @@ AppArmorSetImageFDLabel(virSecurityManagerPtr mgr, > return reload_profile(mgr, vm, fd_path, true); > } > >-static int >-AppArmorSetProcessFDLabel(virSecurityManagerPtr mgr, >- virDomainObjPtr vm, >- int fd) >-{ >- int rc = -1; >- char *proc = NULL; >- char *fd_path = NULL; >- >- const virSecurityLabelDefPtr secdef =&vm->def->seclabel; This is non-trivial code. While we've already determined that SELinux doesn't need SetProcessFDLabel, is there any chance that app-armor still needs this approach? If so, that would argue for keeping the function, but making it a no-op stub for SELinux, and still calling it in all the right places for the benefit of app-armor. I'm not familiar enough with app-armor theory of operation to answer this question, and without an answer, I can't give ack or nack.