Re: Should be [PATCH -mm] -- Re: [PATCH -rt] panic on SLIM + selinux

2007-01-02 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Mimi Zohar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Being able to compile both SELinux and SLIM into the kernel was done > intentionally. Intentionally so that you can switch back and forth for testing? > The kernel parameters 'selinux' and 'slim' can enable > or disable the LSM module at boot. Perhaps, f

Re: Should be [PATCH -mm] -- Re: [PATCH -rt] panic on SLIM + selinux

2007-01-02 Thread Daniel Walker
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 13:05 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > Being able to compile both SELinux and SLIM into the kernel was done > intentionally. The kernel parameters 'selinux' and 'slim' can enable > or disable the LSM module at boot. Perhaps, for the time being, the > SECURITY_SLIM_BOOTPARAM_VALUE

Re: Should be [PATCH -mm] -- Re: [PATCH -rt] panic on SLIM + selinux

2007-01-02 Thread Mimi Zohar
Being able to compile both SELinux and SLIM into the kernel was done intentionally. The kernel parameters 'selinux' and 'slim' can enable or disable the LSM module at boot. Perhaps, for the time being, the SECURITY_SLIM_BOOTPARAM_VALUE should default to 0. Mimi - To unsubscribe from this list: s

Should be [PATCH -mm] -- Re: [PATCH -rt] panic on SLIM + selinux

2006-12-30 Thread Daniel Walker
Sorry, really for -mm . On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 07:48 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > If you have both SLIM and selinux compiled into your kernel selinux will panic > if it can't register itself. The code below, > > if (register_security (&selinux_ops)) > panic("SELinux: Unable to register wi