gt;:
> On 12/08/2017 08:20 AM, Viacheslav Salnikov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > First of all, I googled and experimented. Didn't work out so well.
> >
> > I want to ensure that communication through unix socket is monitored by
> apparmor.
> > What should I do to
Hi guys,
I have a question about apparmor and its dependency from python.
I'm using it with Yocto, apparmor version is 2.11.0.
Except* aa-easyprof*, does apparmor or its libraries and utilities use
python for something? I am talking not only about execution but also about
compilation, installing
amp;&
make check) && \ (cd binutils && make && make check) && \ (cd parser &&
make)*
Thank you, I will try.
2017-11-17 21:06 GMT+02:00 Tyler Hicks <tyhi...@canonical.com>:
> On 11/17/2017 12:57 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> > On 11/17/20
Hello,
First of all, I googled and experimented. Didn't work out so well.
I want to ensure that communication through unix socket is monitored by
apparmor.
What should I do to make this happen?
Hope you will help me with that.
Thanks.
--
AppArmor mailing list
AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify
for investigation and af_unit is in the kernel.
Does it mean that somebody did the backport or what? Maybe you know about
that.
Best regards, Slava.
2017-12-14 11:55 GMT+02:00 Viacheslav Salnikov <slavasalnik...@gmail.com>:
> Hello Seth and John,
>
> Thanks f
when an app writes/reads from the socket?
2018-02-09 14:34 GMT+02:00 John Johansen <john.johan...@canonical.com>:
> On 02/09/2018 04:05 AM, Viacheslav Salnikov wrote:
> > Hi Jonh,
> >
> > But even if upstream backport from 4.10 to 4.4 does not contain
> out-of-tree p
Hi Jonh,
But even if upstream backport from 4.10 to 4.4 does not contain out-of-tree
patches, Xenial 4.4 has sockets support (*and probably namespaces support
too*).
Or am I wrong?
2018-02-07 15:59 GMT+02:00 John Johansen <john.johan...@canonical.com>:
> On 02/07/2018 04:32 AM, V
Many thanks, friends!
You gave me information I was looking for.
2018-02-15 21:37 GMT+02:00 John Johansen <john.johan...@canonical.com>:
> On 02/15/2018 07:21 AM, Viacheslav Salnikov wrote:
> > OK, let me be more specific:
> >
> > does AppArmor complain about com
OK, let me be more specific:
does AppArmor complain about communication through the unix domain sockets
into dmesg?
All I've got - AppArmor can restrict access to named unix socket as a file
- because it is a file - without using "deny unix". Actually, deny unix
does not work for me with named
