On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 00:31 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> It also
> breaks crash reporters such as DrKonqi (for DrKonqi, we work around this by
> disabling the flag in kde-runtime's %post script, but there are other
> similar debuggers in upstream software, some not packaged in Fedora)
I ask in
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon technique?
> or if my assesement is wrong... can someone point me to a better
> explanation/tutorial?
chcon is almost never the right way to go. It changes the file on the
FS, but it is li
On 06/22/2011 03:20 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 20:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Are we going to continue the double grub entries? while I realize that
> tboot SHOULD allow non TXT hw to boot properly I also realize that any
> differences will be pointed to as a point of con
On 06/22/2011 03:01 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>> Outside that, is there any other impact? Does tboot perform any
>> verification of the kernels, and if so how is that configured? Is the
>> expectation that an install configured with TXT will only boot trusted
>> kernels, and if so what mechanism is
On 06/22/2011 03:02 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Trusted_Boot is a proposed
> feature for F16. We've traditionally had a hard objection to the
> functionality because it required either the distribution or downloading
> of binary code that ran on the host C
