Re: AppArmor support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 15:04 +0100, Filipe Laíns via arch-general wrote:
> 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

Hey,

Nevermind my reply. The email somehow didn't get moved to my mailing
list folder so I thought it was sent to my address directly. Sorry for
the confusion.

Thanks,
Filipe Laíns
3DCE 51D6 0930 EBA4 7858 BA41 46F6 33CB B0EB 4BF2

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux