On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Casey Schaufler <ca...@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] LSM: module hierarchy in /proc/.../attr
>
> Back in 2007 I made what turned out to be a rather serious
> mistake in the implementation of the Smack security module.
> Th
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] LSM: module hierarchy in /proc/.../attr
>
> Back in 2007 I made what turned out to be a rather serious
> mistake in the implementation of the Smack security module.
> The SELinux module used an int
Hi,
[auto build test ERROR on security/next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.7-rc2 next-20160608]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Hi,
[auto build test ERROR on security/next]
[also build test ERROR on v4.7-rc2 next-20160608]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Hi,
[auto build test WARNING on security/next]
[also build test WARNING on v4.7-rc2 next-20160608]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Hi,
[auto build test WARNING on security/next]
[also build test WARNING on v4.7-rc2 next-20160608]
[if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help
improve the system]
url:
Subject: [PATCH] LSM: module hierarchy in /proc/.../attr
Back in 2007 I made what turned out to be a rather serious
mistake in the implementation of the Smack security module.
The SELinux module used an interface in /proc to manipulate
the security context on processes. Rather than use a similar
Subject: [PATCH] LSM: module hierarchy in /proc/.../attr
Back in 2007 I made what turned out to be a rather serious
mistake in the implementation of the Smack security module.
The SELinux module used an interface in /proc to manipulate
the security context on processes. Rather than use a similar
8 matches
Mail list logo
