On 04/05/2012 01:47 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
> Hello,
>
sorry for the delay, very busy lately for some reason :/
> should we check all profiles if they need inet6 added?
>
yes, thanks for bringing this up
> (Note that I don't have an IPv6 setup here, so I can't test it.)
>
>
> A quick grep
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 05:24:49PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 05:07 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 6. April 2012 schrieb Steve Beattie:
> >> Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apparmor/+bug/800826
> >> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755923
>
On 04/17/2012 01:00 PM, Seth Arnold wrote:
> I'd like to voice my opposition for putting this style of tool in any
> automatic position -- it feels as dirty as SELinux's relabeling daemon to me,
> to give some idea of how much I dislike it -- by putting policy in
> application configuration file
I'd like to voice my opposition for putting this style of tool in any automatic
position -- it feels as dirty as SELinux's relabeling daemon to me, to give
some idea of how much I dislike it -- by putting policy in application
configuration files we lose the ability to confine incorrect configur
Hello,
Am Montag, 16. April 2012 schrieb Steve Beattie:
> The ideal solution would be something integrated into the dnsmasq init
> script process that parses out the dnsmasq config enough to determine
> the tftproot and sets a variable in an included file for the profile
> before loading both the
Public bug reported:
/sys/module/apparmor/parameteres contains information about apparmor's
availability but can not be accessed without capability mount.
This requires that we expose this information via another mechanism as
well, probably via the apparmorfs
** Affects: apparmor
Importance
