[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [saag] [nfsv4] [Labeled-nfs] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 08:45:06PM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> I don't know about TX, but it seems possible that someone might want to
> make SELinux with an MLS policy interoperate with a different MLS platform
> (note that this would not apply in the case of interop with purely legacy
> systems, as they won't have NFSv4.x support). I have no idea how likely
> this scenario is, and I wouldn't try to accommodate this goal in the
> protocol unless a stakeholder could make a solid case for it.
Well, here at the IETF we do like to have interoperable protocols. We
ought to at least try.
> Note that we should expect interoperability between Solaris FMAC and
> SELinux (i.e. the same security model implemented on different platforms,
> like Unix DAC).
OK.
- References:
- Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
- Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
- Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
- Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
- Re: [saag] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
- Re: [saag] [Labeled-nfs] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
- Re: [saag] [Labeled-nfs] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
- Re: [saag] [Labeled-nfs] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
- Re: [saag] [Labeled-nfs] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
- Re: [saag] [nfsv4] [Labeled-nfs] Common labeled security (comment on CALIPSO, labeled NFSv4)
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions
of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.