On 7/16/20 12:45 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:13 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
wrote:
On 7/16/20 11:54 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
Not sure about this error handling approach (silent, proceeding as if
the length was zero and then later failing with ENOMEM on every
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:13 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
wrote:
>
> On 7/16/20 11:54 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > Not sure about this error handling approach (silent, proceeding as if
> > the length was zero and then later failing with ENOMEM on every
> > attempt?). I'd be more inclined to
On 7/16/20 11:54 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
The data for selinux-state in the above measurement is:
enabled=1;enforcing=0;checkreqprot=1;network_peer_controls=1;open_perms=1;extended_socket_class=1;always_check_network=0;cgroup_seclabel=1;nnp_nosuid_transition=1;genfs_seclabel_symlinks=0;
The
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 1:44 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
wrote:
>
> SELinux configuration and policy are some of the critical data for this
> security module that needs to be measured. To enable this measurement
> SELinux needs to implement the interface function,
> security_measure_data(), that
SELinux configuration and policy are some of the critical data for this
security module that needs to be measured. To enable this measurement
SELinux needs to implement the interface function,
security_measure_data(), that the LSM can call.
Define the security_state() function in SELinux to
5 matches
Mail list logo