| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:45:01 -0800 From: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com> To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> CC: john.johansen@...onical.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] Kconfig and Makefiles to enable configuration and building of AppArmor. Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting john.johansen@...onical.com (john.johansen@...onical.com): >> From: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com> >> << snip >> >> +config SECURITY_APPARMOR_NETWORK >> + bool "AppArmor network support" >> + depends on SECURITY_APPARMOR >> + default n >> + help >> + This enables AppArmor to mediate applications network use. >> + This will enable the SECURITY_NETWORK hooks. > > Is there a compelling reason to have SECURITY_APPARMOR_NETWORK? Does > it impact performance? Is there older userspace that will just break? > No, not really anymore. There used to be a case where I was building with network hooks off and this has just been carried forward. So it can go along with config APPARMOR_24_COMPAT, and I have even been considering pulling the runtime disable as well as I don't think there is a case for that either. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists