On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 10:56 -0400, Brock Palen wrote: > It has been stated on the list before that the lustre servers
And clients. > are not > compatible with SELinux, Right. > but what about clients? No, I don't believe so, and the bug you reference below further supports my belief about it. > We have some post-processing desktops that are clients of our lustre > system. We don't have control over this load, and they are dedicated > to using SELinux. Other than you hacking SELinux support into Lustre (and giving us the patch of course) I'm not sure what to suggest to/for you. SELinux is just not a feature that has bubbled up in priority enough (yet) to have anyone work on it. > Redhat says it is a lustre problem, after working on it a few months > with them: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489583 From what I've read, it would seem they are right. I doubt you will get anyone that will argue that. We just don't have the demand/funding (and hence the manpower) to implement it. b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
