04.12.2012 18:20, Eric Paris пишет:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Stanislav Kinsbursky
wrote:
But there should be noted, that such implementation introduces limitation
(Trond's quote):
"That approach can fall afoul of the selinux restrictions on the process
context. Processes that are
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Stanislav Kinsbursky
wrote:
> But there should be noted, that such implementation introduces limitation
> (Trond's quote):
> "That approach can fall afoul of the selinux restrictions on the process
> context. Processes that are allowed to write data, may not be
Local tranports uses UNIX sockets and connecting of these sockets is done in
context of file system namespace (i.e. task file system root).
Currenly, all sockets connect operations are performed by rpciod work queue,
which actually means, that any service will be registered in the same
rpcbind
Local tranports uses UNIX sockets and connecting of these sockets is done in
context of file system namespace (i.e. task file system root).
Currenly, all sockets connect operations are performed by rpciod work queue,
which actually means, that any service will be registered in the same
rpcbind
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Stanislav Kinsbursky
skinsbur...@parallels.com wrote:
But there should be noted, that such implementation introduces limitation
(Trond's quote):
That approach can fall afoul of the selinux restrictions on the process
context. Processes that are allowed to write
04.12.2012 18:20, Eric Paris пишет:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Stanislav Kinsbursky
skinsbur...@parallels.com wrote:
But there should be noted, that such implementation introduces limitation
(Trond's quote):
That approach can fall afoul of the selinux restrictions on the process
context.
6 matches
Mail list logo
