On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:02:54PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Horms [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 01:27:27PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:24:20AM -0500, Geiger Guenter wrote:
This means that it has to be dropped. Thats ok with me,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 01:27:27PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:24:20AM -0500, Geiger Guenter wrote:
This means that it has to be dropped. Thats ok with me, it means less
work. What was the reason again for not including the capabilities as
a module ?
Making
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:24:20AM -0500, Geiger Guenter wrote:
This means that it has to be dropped. Thats ok with me, it means less
work. What was the reason again for not including the capabilities as
a module ?
Making Security modules actually modular means they don't have the full
view of
chaining was rejected upstream already. For a good reason because
chanining access control decisions in multiple modules is inherently
broken. The only users are totally idiotic ideas like this realtime
lsm anyway.
This means that it has to be dropped. Thats ok with me, it means less
work.
Hi,
I am maintaining a linux security module (LSM) called realtime
for the Debian system. Loading the module into the stock Debian
kernel only works if
CONFIG_SECURITY=y
and
CONFIG_SECURITY_CAPABILITIES=m,
which means that the kernel has to be security enabled and the
standard security setting
Hi Guenter,
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Guenter Geiger wrote:
Hi,
I am maintaining a linux security module (LSM) called realtime
for the Debian system. Loading the module into the stock Debian
kernel only works if
CONFIG_SECURITY=y
and
CONFIG_SECURITY_CAPABILITIES=m,
which means that the kernel has
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
It appears that this change was done with svn commit 4206, which moved all
the security related config settings to the common config file. I'm CCing
Bastian Blank who made this change, so that he can comment on whether
there is
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 04:23:04PM +0200, Guenter Geiger wrote:
For most of the time this has actually been the case for Debian kernels,
unfortunately these setting seem to have changed, so that with the new
2.6.13 release the capability.ko is compiled into the kernel, which makes
it
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:15:11PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
Can this be considered a bug and should I file a bug report ?
wishlist+upstream for proper chain support.
chaining was rejected upstream already. For a good reason because
chanining access control decisions in multiple modules
9 matches
Mail list logo
