Le vendredi 03 janvier 2014 à 11:48 -0500, Daniel J Walsh a écrit : > On 01/03/2014 09:16 AM, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Well thinking about this again, I think still to the single label. Lets not > break the field up into multiple labels. > > And not make it SELinux specific. Maybe the field could be SecurityLabel: > > That would allow smack to also use the field and any other LSM that used a > labeling system. I fail to follow you. The current code use setexecon, and this is quite selinux specific. What would be the equivalent for apparmor, for smack and others ? -- Michael Scherer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
