Re: [systemd-devel] SMACK runtime vs build-time checks? (aka: tmp.mount broke my boot)

2015-10-27 Thread Karel Zak
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:22:15PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: > > So far all existing SELinux and SMACK options had runtime checks – if > > systemd was built with +SMACK but the kernel wasn't, it still worked fine. > >

Re: [systemd-devel] SMACK runtime vs build-time checks? (aka: tmp.mount broke my boot)

2015-10-27 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Tue, 27.10.15 10:35, Karel Zak (k...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:22:15PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: > > > So far all existing SELinux and SMACK options had runtime checks – if > > > systemd was

Re: [systemd-devel] SMACK runtime vs build-time checks? (aka: tmp.mount broke my boot)

2015-10-18 Thread Andrei Borzenkov
18.10.2015 07:01, Mantas Mikulėnas пишет: So far all existing SELinux and SMACK options had runtime checks – if systemd was built with +SMACK but the kernel wasn't, it still worked fine. (Arch uses such a configuration.) But then https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1571 added an option to

Re: [systemd-devel] SMACK runtime vs build-time checks? (aka: tmp.mount broke my boot)

2015-10-18 Thread Kay Sievers
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote: > So far all existing SELinux and SMACK options had runtime checks – if > systemd was built with +SMACK but the kernel wasn't, it still worked fine. > (Arch uses such a configuration.) > > But then

[systemd-devel] SMACK runtime vs build-time checks? (aka: tmp.mount broke my boot)

2015-10-17 Thread Mantas Mikulėnas
So far all existing SELinux and SMACK options had runtime checks – if systemd was built with +SMACK but the kernel wasn't, it still worked fine. (Arch uses such a configuration.) But then https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1571 added an option to tmp.mount which only depends on the