On Friday 02 May 2008, Tim Gardner wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> >
> > [ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
> >
> >> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
> >> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
> >> Maybe have make apply a patch
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jeff Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Friday 2008-05-02 18:26, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> >>> To the best of my knowledge, the AppArmor patches are arch and flavour
> >>> indepen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Friday 2008-05-02 18:26, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>> To the best of my knowledge, the AppArmor patches are arch and flavour
>>> independent. If CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR exists, then the AA code is
>>> compiled. This is certainly
On Friday 2008-05-02 18:26, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, the AppArmor patches are arch and flavour
>> independent. If CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR exists, then the AA code is
>> compiled. This is certainly the case for Hardy. Neither Kees or myself
>> are aware of any reason
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>
> [ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
>
>> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
>> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
>> Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
>> succeeds? Does this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Gardner wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
>> On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>>
>> [ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
>>
>>> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
>>> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
>>> Maybe have m
On Friday 2008-05-02 16:38, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>> Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell if
>> the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
>
>Do we really need to support kernels
On Friday 02 May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell
> > if the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
>
> Do we really need to support kernels com
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell if
> the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
Do we really need to support kernels compiled with the apparmour patch
applied but not enable
On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
[ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
> Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
> succeeds? Does this work in SUSE?
>
> http://www.d
On Friday 2008-05-02 16:15, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>
>Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
>exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
>Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
>succeeds? Does this work in SUSE?
>
>http://www.digitalprognosis.com/opensource/patches/
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> > Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
> > work for Hardy. However the next dev
On Friday 2008-05-02 14:52, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to:
>>
>> make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
^
M=$PWD
>This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues),
If it oopses,
On Friday 2008-05-02 14:52, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to:
>>
>> make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
>
>This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues), but I'd
>prefer that people not have to know what apparmor is or i
On Friday 02 May 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
> work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does
> not have the APPARMOR patches, so just know
On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does not
have the APPARMOR patches, so just knowing that its an UBUNTU kernel is
not specific
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Gardner wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
>> On Thursday 01 May 2008, Tim Gardner wrote:
>>
>> [ btrfs oops on ubuntu ]
>>
> This is because ubuntu kernels ship with apparmor, you'll need this
> patch:
>
> If there is a #ifdef IM_A_UBUN
Hi,
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 01:36:25PM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 May 2008, Tim Gardner wrote:
> >
> > [ btrfs oops on ubuntu ]
> >
> This is because ubuntu kernels ship with apparmor, you'll need this
> patch:
>
> If there is a #ifdef
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thursday 01 May 2008, Tim Gardner wrote:
>
> [ btrfs oops on ubuntu ]
>
This is because ubuntu kernels ship with apparmor, you'll need this
patch:
If there is a #ifdef IM_A_UBUNTU_KERNEL I can use, I'll do it. Jeff
Mahoney has a similar patch fo
Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> adding the ubuntu kernel team. BenC or TimG, do you have any
> suggestions for Chris?
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thursday 01 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thursday 01 May 2008, Tim Gardner wrote:
>
> [ btrfs oops on ubuntu ]
>
This is because ubuntu kernels ship with apparmor, you'll need this
patch:
If there is a #ifdef IM_A_UBUNTU_KERNEL I can use, I'll d
On Thursday 01 May 2008, Tim Gardner wrote:
[ btrfs oops on ubuntu ]
> >> This is because ubuntu kernels ship with apparmor, you'll need this
> >> patch:
> >>
> >> If there is a #ifdef IM_A_UBUNTU_KERNEL I can use, I'll do it. Jeff
> >> Mahoney has a similar patch for SUSE that I've been meani
adding the ubuntu kernel team. BenC or TimG, do you have any
suggestions for Chris?
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 01 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday
On Thursday 01 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk
> > > format has changed, a
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk format has
> > changed, and it is not compatible with older versions of Btrfs.
> >
On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk format has
> changed, and it is not compatible with older versions of Btrfs.
>
> For downloads and documention, please see the Btrfs project page:
>
> http://btrfs.wik
Hello everyone,
Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk format has
changed, and it is not compatible with older versions of Btrfs.
For downloads and documention, please see the Btrfs project page:
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org
The oss.oracle.com Btrfs project page will
27 matches
Mail list logo
