On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 19:00 +0200, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>
>> In addition, I added the interface "network". This is due to to lnav
>> opening a UNIX domain socket,
>> and using the "sendto()" system call.
>
> Is this
On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 19:00 +0200, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> In addition, I added the interface "network". This is due to to lnav
> opening a UNIX domain socket,
> and using the "sendto()" system call.
Is this a socket for IPC between commands in your snap or for something else?
--
Jamie
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> hi,
> Am Donnerstag, den 02.02.2017, 15:11 +0200 schrieb Simos Xenitellis:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I created a snap for lnav and I attach the snapcraft.yaml file.
>>
>> I plan to use the "classic" confinement in the final version.
hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 02.02.2017, 15:11 +0200 schrieb Simos Xenitellis:
> Hi All,
>
> I created a snap for lnav and I attach the snapcraft.yaml file.
>
> I plan to use the "classic" confinement in the final version.
> Would that be advisable or should I change to permit only to open log
> files
In general, strict confinement is better. In this case, if you are
confident that the logs which matter will be in /var/log, then yes it
would be better to have strict confinement with an interface that allows
reading from that location.
Mark
On 02/02/17 13:11, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> Hi All,
Hi All,
I created a snap for lnav and I attach the snapcraft.yaml file.
I plan to use the "classic" confinement in the final version.
Would that be advisable or should I change to permit only to open log
files from /var/log/?
According to the documentation, I am asking here for comments (so as