Hi,
parspes wrote (12 Dec 2014 23:54:07 GMT) :
> Do we have a consensus upon @sys from tunables/sys?
I think so, yes. (I didn't notice it exists initially.)
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
On 12/12/14, intrigeri wrote:
>> Not sure how the profile's author managed to
have the parser compile it.
I still have includes mostly from Wheezy as I was working on profiles
and started there. Okay, so I (or someone) need to change the patch as
follows:
@{PROC}/@{pids}/** r,
No /tunables/ke
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 01:46:21PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> Craig Small wrote (06 Dec 2014 20:46:29 GMT) :
> > I have tested this with ps and it seems that all the flags are working
> > OK. I couldn't break it with the usual combination of ps options.
>
> Thanks for testing!
Very nice, thanks.
Hi,
parspes wrote (06 Dec 2014 21:38:36 GMT) :
> An unexpected new compiler directive could cause a problem I agree. I
> would prefer @{pid} to be capitalized and it is a little troublesome
> where an * would suffice IMHO :)
"*" would work, but it would also grant access to various files that
th
Hi,
Craig Small wrote (06 Dec 2014 20:46:29 GMT) :
> I have tested this with ps and it seems that all the flags are working
> OK. I couldn't break it with the usual combination of ps options.
Thanks for testing!
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 11:17:02AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
>> > #include
>> > #in
This profile was somewhat based upon feedback from upstream upon
another profile.
Steve Beattie wrote:
" A better rule would probably be:
@{PROC}/@{pid}/loginuid r, "
An unexpected new compiler directive could cause a problem I agree. I
would prefer @{pid} to be capitalized and it is a little
I have tested this with ps and it seems that all the flags are working
OK. I couldn't break it with the usual combination of ps options.
On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 11:17:02AM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> > #include
> > #include
> These two last lines require AppArmor from Jessie, so the "Suggests:
> a
Control: tag -1 - patch
Control: user pkg-apparmor-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org
Control: usertag -1 new-profile
Hi,
Pat Parson wrote (04 Dec 2014 02:48:08 GMT) :
> /bin/ps does not have an apparmor profile.
> I have attached an apparmor profile to patch the package.
Thanks a lot! Here's an i
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 08:48:08PM -0600, Pat Parson wrote:
> /bin/ps does not have an apparmor profile.
> I have attached an apparmor profile to patch the package.
Testing this I got an error about pid being duplicated.
Removing the kernelvars include got rid of this error.
I'm not sure why it
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Craig Small wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:20:24PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
>> You may want to make sure there is not duplication of work with this guy:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/2014-December/006896.html
> He's the bug submitter. So no
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:20:24PM -0800, Cameron Norman wrote:
> You may want to make sure there is not duplication of work with this guy:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/2014-December/006896.html
He's the bug submitter. So no duplication.
- Craig
--
Craig Small (@smallsees) htt
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Craig Small wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:42:02PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
>> * reviewed by someone who's knowledgeable about AppArmor, to make
>> sure it actually offers some protection and respects various best
> Could someone on the list look a
On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 04:42:02PM +0100, intrigeri wrote:
> * reviewed by someone who's knowledgeable about AppArmor, to make
> sure it actually offers some protection and respects various best
Could someone on the list look at that for me? The patch is in the bug
report.
> * tested by so
Hi Craig,
Craig Small wrote (04 Dec 2014 09:47:10 GMT) :
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 08:48:08PM -0600, Pat Parson wrote:
>> /bin/ps does not have an apparmor profile.
>> I have attached an apparmor profile to patch the package.
> Except for a basic concept, I'm not familiar with apparmour and Deb
Hi pkg apparmor team,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 08:48:08PM -0600, Pat Parson wrote:
> /bin/ps does not have an apparmor profile.
> I have attached an apparmor profile to patch the package.
Except for a basic concept, I'm not familiar with apparmour and Debian.
The Debian wiki is not too helpful w
Package: procps
Version: 2:3.3.9-8
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Dear Maintainer,
/bin/ps does not have an apparmor profile.
I have attached an apparmor profile to patch the package.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
Architecture: i386 (i686)
# Last Modified: Mon Dec 1 1
16 matches
Mail list logo
