On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 4:44 PM, John Johansen <john.johansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/01/2018 04:30 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >> If we keep it, "apparmor=0 lsm_enable=apparmor" would mean it's >> enabled. Is that okay? >> > ugh I would rather get rid of apparmor=0 or to emit a warning with apparmor > disabled, but if we have to live with it then yes I can live with last > option wins Removing it would be much preferred! :) Assuming Paul is okay with the same results in SELinux, I'll prepare patches... -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
