On 2019/02/09 9:28, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/02/09 1:23, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 2/8/2019 2:52 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> To help administrators easily understand what LSM modules are possibly
>>> enabled by default (which
>>> have to be fetched from e.g. /boot/config-`uname -r`)
>>
>>
On 2019/02/09 1:23, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 2/8/2019 2:52 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> To help administrators easily understand what LSM modules are possibly
>> enabled by default (which
>> have to be fetched from e.g. /boot/config-`uname -r`)
>
> $ cat /sys/kernel/security/lsm
>
/sys/kernel/
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 2:52 AM Tetsuo Handa
wrote:
>
> On 2019/02/08 1:24, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Then, I think that it is straightforward (and easier to manage) to
> ignore security= parameter
> when lsm= parameter is specified.
> >>> That reduces flexibility somewhat. If I am d
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 8:24 AM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> I added Kees to the CC list. Kees, what to you think about
> ignoring security= if lsm= is specified? I'm ambivalent.
This was one of many earlier suggestions, and the consensus seemed to
be "don't mix security= and lsm=". Why would anyone u
On 2/8/2019 2:52 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/02/08 1:24, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Then, I think that it is straightforward (and easier to manage) to ignore
> security= parameter
> when lsm= parameter is specified.
That reduces flexibility somewhat. If I am debugging security
On 2019/02/08 1:24, Casey Schaufler wrote:
Then, I think that it is straightforward (and easier to manage) to ignore
security= parameter
when lsm= parameter is specified.
>>> That reduces flexibility somewhat. If I am debugging security modules
>>> I may want to use lsm= to specify
On 2/6/2019 6:30 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> On 2/6/2019 2:23 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> But as I update the documentation (
>>> https://tomoyo.osdn.jp/2.6/chapter-3.html.en#3.6 ),
>>> I came to think that we should ignore security= parameter when lsm=
>>> parameter is sp
Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 2/6/2019 2:23 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > But as I update the documentation (
> > https://tomoyo.osdn.jp/2.6/chapter-3.html.en#3.6 ),
> > I came to think that we should ignore security= parameter when lsm=
> > parameter is specified.
> >
> > Currently, it is possible t
On 2/6/2019 2:23 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/02/04 17:07, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:09 PM Tetsuo Handa
>> wrote:
>>> On 2019/02/01 19:50, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:44 AM Tetsuo Handa
wrote:
> On 2019/02/01 19:09, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On 2019/02/04 17:07, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:09 PM Tetsuo Handa
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/02/01 19:50, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:44 AM Tetsuo Handa
>>> wrote:
On 2019/02/01 19:09, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Thanks for the explanations.
>
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:09 PM Tetsuo Handa
wrote:
>
> On 2019/02/01 19:50, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:44 AM Tetsuo Handa
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2019/02/01 19:09, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the explanations.
> >>>
> >>> Here is the change that I've come up with
On 2019/02/01 19:50, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:44 AM Tetsuo Handa
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/02/01 19:09, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> Thanks for the explanations.
>>>
>>> Here is the change that I've come up with:
>>> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/aa53be276dc84aa8b3825
12 matches
Mail list logo
