On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 13:42 +0000, Gus wrote: > I know such request was rejected here > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/59733 > recently, but still AppArmor doesn't need linking with libraries and > doesn't > require as much userland support as SELinux, so it will not hurt to > have > one > option enabled in kernel, right? Hey Gus, I'm sorry but I'm not the maintainer :/. You'll need to talk to them again. If you think the closure of the bug was wrong I suggest to send a mail to the mailing list explaining this. Why don't you use linux-hardened instead? It's up-to-date and has both options enabled (AppArmor and SELinux). I feel that it's the biggest issue. We already have a kernel with both options enabled so there's no point on also adding them in the main one, given that those option require a lot of userspace support. Do you have relevant reason why you don't want to use linux-hardened? If so, that would probably change some things. Thanks, Filipe Laíns 3DCE 51D6 0930 EBA4 7858 BA41 46F6 33CB B0EB 4BF2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
