On 06/08/12 14:55, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Friday, June 08, 2012 02:28:44 PM Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
>>>> index 3ad2902..cb893f9 100644
>>>> --- a/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
>>>> +++ b/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
>>>> @@ -44,7 +44,8 @@
>>>>
>>>> /* Policy capability filenames */
>>>> static char *policycap_names[] = {
>>>>
>>>> "network_peer_controls",
>>>>
>>>> - "open_perms"
>>>> + "open_perms",
>>>> + "always_check_network"
>>>>
>>>> };
>>>
>>> Similarly, I think "network_always" is more consistent.
>>
>> Earlier discussions concluded with this capability name. (to be specific
>> the discussion resolved with always_check_packets, but that was before the
>> peer class was included)
>
> Once again, I don't believe I ever commented on the name of the capability,
> but I am now. Disregard my comments or incorporate them, that is up to you,
> and ultimately Eric, to decide.
My apologies, you did not comment on the capability name in the previous thread.
--
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
www.tresys.com | oss.tresys.com
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
