On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 16:58, Eric Paris <epa...@parisplace.org> wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:54 AM, John Johansen
>> AppArmor, Tomoyo and IMA all create their own subdirectoy under securityfs >> so this should not be a problem > > I guess the question is, should SELinux try to move to /sys/fs/selinux > or /sys/security/selinux. The only minor issue I see with the later > is that it requires both sysfs and securityfs to be mounted before you > can mount selinuxfs, whereas the first only requires sysfs. Stephen, > Casey, either of you have thoughts on the matter? Right, that was my question too, if that's an option. Mounting /sys and /sys/security beforehand doesn't sound like a problem, we have that kind of stacking with several other kernel fss too. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
