From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Fri Sep 23 10:19:29 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA77BE5F61; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:19:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [198.74.231.69]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACD4FD6; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:19:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.81.201] (unknown [212.163.6.23]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABE2446CF5; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: How to bring au_to_attr(3) back to the userland? From: "Robert N. M. Watson" In-Reply-To: <08154690-df05-9314-702e-4e0cdd661f04@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 11:19:26 +0100 Cc: Mateusz Piotrowski <0mp@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, trustedbsd-discuss@freebsd.org, trustedbsd-audit@freebsd.org Message-Id: References: <83CC669E-FED9-4ABE-A5A5-376E1A743AF8@FreeBSD.org> <09D137C4-2630-4B93-ACDC-CB3AFC86D89F@FreeBSD.org> <93122C2D-A660-4A47-A780-44E8309E4377@FreeBSD.org> <08154690-df05-9314-702e-4e0cdd661f04@FreeBSD.org> To: Konrad Witaszczyk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:19:29 -0000 On 23 Sep 2016, at 11:09, Konrad Witaszczyk wrote: >> I guess you have two choices: >>=20 >> (1) Retain existing KPIs to slightly ease merging to FreeBSD and Mac = OS X; they can adopt the new in-kernel interfaces when ready. >=20 > I think it won't be hard to adopt the changes in the FreeBSD kernel = together > with the changes in libbsm. Would you still consider it as an issue = because of > macOS if we fix it in FreeBSD? I don't know how important it is to = their > developers to stick with the current OpenBSM implementation. While the kernel and userspace share code from OpenBSM in both FreeBSD = and Mac OS X, it=E2=80=99s useful to be able to upgrade userspace = without necessarily changing kernel code =E2=80=94 e.g., if security = patches are required in parsing, etc. I think it would be best to = differentiate the new programming interface by giving it a new name, and = keeping the existing interface, but marked to be removed at a future = date. We could even discourage its use by making if #ifdef = OPENBSM_DEPRECATED or such, requiring that it be explicitly enabled to = be available to hint to those doing merges that it=E2=80=99s time to = move to the new KPI. Robert=