On 08/30/2011 11:03 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
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.
The app armour code here was just copied from the similarly name SetImageFDLabel, which resolves the FD into a file path using /proc/self/fd/$FDNUM. This actually never worked for TCP sockets with apparmour, so I don't believe I'm making anything worse.
Fair enough. If we actually need something for tcp socket labeling in apparmor, then we can add a working solution later; disabling the questionable code now is okay. You've given me an answer good enough that I feel comfortable for: ACK. -- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org