On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 11:27 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:48:38AM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
[...]
> > Okay, there are 4 kernel patches, not all of them are needed depending on
> > whether
> > the network patch is applied or not.
> >
> > If you don't want to
Hi John,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:48:38AM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> On 06/23/2012 11:53 AM, intrigeri wrote:
> > John Johansen wrote (17 Jun 2012 19:08:20 GMT) :
> >> On 06/15/2012 05:08 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> >> If we don't want to restrict sockets used by the kernel, don't w
On 06/23/2012 11:53 AM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> John Johansen wrote (17 Jun 2012 19:08:20 GMT) :
>> On 06/15/2012 05:08 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> If we don't want to restrict sockets used by the kernel, don't we need
>> to store the kern flag for later use by aa_revalidate_s
On 06/23/2012 12:30 PM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ben Hutchings wrote (23 Jun 2012 19:02:06 GMT) :
>> What is it that you think will happen at the freeze? We stop fixing
>> all bugs and do nothing for the next few months?
>
> Of course, and we'll lazily eat lots of icecream while you work hard
>
On 06/23/2012 11:53 AM, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> John Johansen wrote (17 Jun 2012 19:08:20 GMT) :
>> On 06/15/2012 05:08 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> If we don't want to restrict sockets used by the kernel, don't we need
>> to store the kern flag for later use by aa_revalidate_s
Hi,
Ben Hutchings wrote (23 Jun 2012 19:02:06 GMT) :
> What is it that you think will happen at the freeze? We stop fixing
> all bugs and do nothing for the next few months?
Of course, and we'll lazily eat lots of icecream while you work hard
to release many shiny new Linux 3.2.x :)
Irony set as
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 20:53 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> John Johansen wrote (17 Jun 2012 19:08:20 GMT) :
> > On 06/15/2012 05:08 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >>>
> > If we don't want to restrict sockets used by the kernel, don't we need
> > to store the kern flag for later use by
Hi John,
John Johansen wrote (17 Jun 2012 19:08:20 GMT) :
> On 06/15/2012 05:08 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>
> If we don't want to restrict sockets used by the kernel, don't we need
> to store the kern flag for later use by aa_revalidate_sk()?
>
For how apparmor is generally deplo
On 06/15/2012 05:08 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 22:38 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
>> Hi John, Ben and all other involved ones,
>>
>> I'd like to see this moving forward, since the Wheezy freeze is coming
>> soon. See bellow explicit questions.
>
> Me too; thanks for the mail.
>
>
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 22:38 +0200, intrigeri wrote:
> Hi John, Ben and all other involved ones,
>
> I'd like to see this moving forward, since the Wheezy freeze is coming
> soon. See bellow explicit questions.
Me too; thanks for the mail.
> John Johansen wrote (07 Jun 2012 16:45:36 GMT) :
> > On
Hi John, Ben and all other involved ones,
I'd like to see this moving forward, since the Wheezy freeze is coming
soon. See bellow explicit questions.
John Johansen wrote (07 Jun 2012 16:45:36 GMT) :
> On 06/07/2012 07:34 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> If we don't want to restrict sockets used by th
On 06/07/2012 07:34 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:35 +0200, intrig...@debian.org wrote:
>> Package: linux-2.6
>> Severity: normal
>> Version: 3.2.19-1
>> Tags: patch
>> X-Debbugs-CC: john.johan...@canonical.com, k...@debian.org, mi...@riseup.net
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the AppArmor co
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:34 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:35 +0200, intrig...@debian.org wrote:
[...]
> Looking at the network controller patch:
>
> > --- a/security/apparmor/lsm.c
> > +++ b/security/apparmor/lsm.c
> [...]
> > @@ -621,6 +622,104 @@ static int apparmor_task
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:35 +0200, intrig...@debian.org wrote:
> Package: linux-2.6
> Severity: normal
> Version: 3.2.19-1
> Tags: patch
> X-Debbugs-CC: john.johan...@canonical.com, k...@debian.org, mi...@riseup.net
>
> Hi,
>
> the AppArmor compatibility patch applied to fix #661151
> totally bre
Package: linux-2.6
Severity: normal
Version: 3.2.19-1
Tags: patch
X-Debbugs-CC: john.johan...@canonical.com, k...@debian.org, mi...@riseup.net
Hi,
the AppArmor compatibility patch applied to fix #661151
totally breaks AppArmor support; this is a regression.
Details: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin
15 matches
Mail list logo
