Re: Preferred subj= with multiple LSMs

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 18:30:35 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:01 PM Casey Schaufler <casey(a)schaufler-ca.com&gt; wrote: > > I suggest that if supporting dbus well is assisted by > > making reasonable restrictions on what constitutes a valid LSM > > "context" that we have a good reason. > > I continue to believe that restrictions on the label format are a bad > idea Does this include the restriction "the label does not include \0", which is an assumption that dbus is already relying on since I checked it in the thread around <https://marc.info/?l=linux-security-module&m=142323508321029&w=2&... Or is that restriction so fundamental that it's considered OK?