The reason I limited it to just D or x is that without that, r and R files
would also be protected and that wouldn't be desired. I can do a check just
for those however since unfiltered behavior otherwise makes more sense.
On Apr 27, 2011 12:52 PM, "Lennart Poettering"
wrote:
On Wed, 27.04.11 1
On Wed, 27.04.11 10:03, William Douglas (william.r.doug...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> +static bool protected(const char *key) {
> +struct Item *i;
> +
> +if (!(i = find_glob(globs, key)))
> +if (!(i = (Item *)hashmap_get(items, key)))
> +return
Below is version 3 of tmpfile white listing.
>From ed06da9a9dea18070cedf0bc2bf3d387b1bd57f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: William Douglas
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:12:19 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Implement tmpfile white listing.
x, in addition to its old behavior, now will protect (recursively)
f
Lennart Poettering writes:
> Hmm, please don't put patches after the "-- " line in your mails. I have
> trouble responding to your patch mail that way, since my mailer cuts off
> signatures (i.e. everything after "-- ") automatically on reply.
Sorry about that, good to know for the future.
> I a
On Mon, 25.04.11 14:38, William Douglas (william.r.doug...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hello all,
heya,
>
> Below is an updated patch for tmpfile white listing.
Hmm, please don't put patches after the "-- " line in your mails. I have
trouble responding to your patch mail that way, since my mailer cuts
Hello all,
Below is an updated patch for tmpfile white listing.
--
William Douglas, Intel Open Source Technology Center
>From ddbc0e7bd178227e12df461942bc13363a3023e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: William Douglas
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:12:19 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Implement tmpfile white
Hello all,
I have included a patch to allow systemd tmpfile services to use white
listing.
--
William Douglas, Intel Open Source Technology Center
>From ddbc0e7bd178227e12df461942bc13363a3023e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: William Douglas
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:12:19 -0700
Subject: [PATCH]
