Messages in this thread | | | From | Chris Mason <> | Subject | Re: Btrfs v0.14 Released | Date | Fri, 2 May 2008 08:52:50 -0400 |
| |
On Friday 02 May 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > >>>> Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to > >>>> work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does > >>>> not have the APPARMOR patches, so just knowing that its an UBUNTU > >>>> kernel is not specific enough. > >>> > >>> I've been assuming the apparmor patches change remove_suid even when > >>> they are not enabled in the config. > >> > >> Lets get Kees involved. He developed the patch set for Hardy. I would > >> hope that if CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=n then the source would default to > >> its normal state. > > > >remove_suid() isn't the only change AppArmor makes to the VFS interface. > >It's pretty invasive and requires that dentries are passed with a > >companion vfsmount in most cases. Putting #ifdefs around all that code > >would make the problem worse, not better. > > An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to: > > make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues), but I'd prefer that people not have to know what apparmor is or if they have it. (This isn't a knock on apparmor, I'd just rather take care of it automagically).
-chris
| |