[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B83877D.7030308@canonical.com>
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