On Thu, 20.02.14 12:01, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote:
Heya!
I applied the three patches now, and made some clean-ups which I folded
into your last patch. AMong the changes I made is that I dropped is the
hook-up with label_context_set() since that is only for controlling what
la
It was <2014-02-19 śro 20:05>, when Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:17:15PM +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
>> It was <2014-02-19 śro 16:05>, when Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:44:32PM +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
>> >> How to have
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:17:15PM +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
> It was <2014-02-19 śro 16:05>, when Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:44:32PM +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
> >> How to have support for more than one security fw reasonably
> >> compiled in? (I think
ch; Casey Schaufler; Schaufler, Casey; systemd-
> > de...@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] Smack - relabel directories and
> > files created by systemd
> >
> > On Wed, 19.02.14 16:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl)
&g
t: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] Smack - relabel directories and
> files created by systemd
>
> On Wed, 19.02.14 16:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:44:32PM +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
> > > How
It was <2014-02-19 śro 16:06>, when Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 19.02.14 15:44, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote:
>
>> > Also, please move the #ifdef HAVE_SMACK checks inside of this function
>> > and make it a NOP on non-SMACK builds. That way we only have one #ifdef
>> > che
It was <2014-02-19 śro 16:05>, when Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:44:32PM +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
>> How to have support for more than one security fw reasonably
>> compiled in? (I think this is the moment to create the pattern).
> Why not? It would be rather
On Wed, 19.02.14 16:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:44:32PM +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
> > How to have support for more than one security fw reasonably
> > compiled in? (I think this is the moment to create the pattern).
> Why not? It w
On Wed, 19.02.14 15:44, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote:
> > Also, please move the #ifdef HAVE_SMACK checks inside of this function
> > and make it a NOP on non-SMACK builds. That way we only have one #ifdef
> > check for this and not one for each invocation of the function. The
> >
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 03:44:32PM +0100, Łukasz Stelmach wrote:
> How to have support for more than one security fw reasonably
> compiled in? (I think this is the moment to create the pattern).
Why not? It would be rather constraining for a distribution which wants
to support more than one. system
It was <2014-02-19 śro 14:30>, when Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 19.02.14 14:07, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote:
>
>> From: Casey Schaufler
>>
>> Systemd creates directories in /dev. These directories will
>> get the label of systemd, which is the label of the System
>> dom
On Wed, 19.02.14 14:07, Łukasz Stelmach (l.stelm...@samsung.com) wrote:
> From: Casey Schaufler
>
> Systemd creates directories in /dev. These directories will
> get the label of systemd, which is the label of the System
> domain, which is not accessable to everyone. Relabel the
> directories, f
From: Casey Schaufler
Systemd creates directories in /dev. These directories will
get the label of systemd, which is the label of the System
domain, which is not accessable to everyone. Relabel the
directories, files and symlinks created so that they can be
generally used.
Signed-off-by: Casey S
13 matches
Mail list logo
