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 built with +SMACK bu
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.
> > (Arch uses such a con
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 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1
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
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 build-ti