On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 12:35 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:06:37 -0500
> Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch against -bk eliminates the use of i_sock by SELinux as it
> > appears to have been removed recently, breaking the build of SELinux in
> >
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 12:35 -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:06:37 -0500
Stephen Smalley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch against -bk eliminates the use of i_sock by SELinux as it
appears to have been removed recently, breaking the build of SELinux in
-bk. Simply
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:06:37 -0500
Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch against -bk eliminates the use of i_sock by SELinux as it
> appears to have been removed recently, breaking the build of SELinux in
> -bk. Simply replacing the i_sock test with an S_ISSOCK test would be
>
Hi,
This patch against -bk eliminates the use of i_sock by SELinux as it
appears to have been removed recently, breaking the build of SELinux in
-bk. Simply replacing the i_sock test with an S_ISSOCK test would be
unsafe in the SELinux code, as the latter will also return true for the
inodes of
Hi,
This patch against -bk eliminates the use of i_sock by SELinux as it
appears to have been removed recently, breaking the build of SELinux in
-bk. Simply replacing the i_sock test with an S_ISSOCK test would be
unsafe in the SELinux code, as the latter will also return true for the
inodes of
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:06:37 -0500
Stephen Smalley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch against -bk eliminates the use of i_sock by SELinux as it
appears to have been removed recently, breaking the build of SELinux in
-bk. Simply replacing the i_sock test with an S_ISSOCK test would be
unsafe
6 matches
Mail list logo