On 26/08/2014 11:18, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 00:56, Daniel Micay wrote:
>> The lesser evil seems to be adding only a libaudit package... but it's
>> still not going to work if someone tries to use it for what it's
>> intended to do. I'll probably go with this if there's no saner
On 26/08/14 03:47 PM, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Daniel Micay wrote:
>> RBAC also allows quite a bit of auditing with the grsecurity audit
>> infrastructure. You can audit attempts to make use of a certain path,
>> capability, IP protocol, etc. Of course, this
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Daniel Micay wrote:
> RBAC also allows quite a bit of auditing with the grsecurity audit
> infrastructure. You can audit attempts to make use of a certain path,
> capability, IP protocol, etc. Of course, this assumes you have a basic
> working RBAC policy for tackin
On 05/05/2014 00:56, Daniel Micay wrote:
> Sadly, the `perf trace` command has a dependency on libaudit for a few
> convenience functions. I'm curious about what people feel the best
> approach would be here... adding back audit to [community] is ugly since
> it's not going to work, but building it
On 05/05/2014 00:56, Daniel Micay wrote:
> The lesser evil seems to be adding only a libaudit package... but it's
> still not going to work if someone tries to use it for what it's
> intended to do. I'll probably go with this if there's no saner idea.
I think it's a good thing to restore "perf trac
On 07/05/14 05:28 AM, Connor Behan wrote:
> On 07/05/14 01:07 AM, Daniel Micay wrote:
>> Sadly, the `perf trace` command has a dependency on libaudit for a few
>> convenience functions. I'm curious about what people feel the best
>> approach would be here... adding back audit to [community] is ugly
On 07/05/14 05:28 AM, Connor Behan wrote:
> On 07/05/14 01:07 AM, Daniel Micay wrote:
>> Sadly, the `perf trace` command has a dependency on libaudit for a few
>> convenience functions. I'm curious about what people feel the best
>> approach would be here... adding back audit to [community] is ugly
On 07/05/14 01:07 AM, Daniel Micay wrote:
> Sadly, the `perf trace` command has a dependency on libaudit for a few
> convenience functions. I'm curious about what people feel the best
> approach would be here... adding back audit to [community] is ugly since
> it's not going to work, but building i
Sadly, the `perf trace` command has a dependency on libaudit for a few
convenience functions. I'm curious about what people feel the best
approach would be here... adding back audit to [community] is ugly since
it's not going to work, but building it and statically linking it in the
linux-tools pac
9 matches
Mail list logo
