On 29.05.2020 12:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.05.2020 12:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 29/05/2020 10:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> While the behavior to ignore this option without FLASK support was
>>> properly documented, it is still somewhat surprising to someone using
>>> this option and then st
> On May 29, 2020, at 11:39 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH] xsm: also panic upon "flask=enforcing"
> when XSM_FLASK=n"):
>> On 29/05/2020 10:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> While the behavior to ignore this option withou
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [PATCH] xsm: also panic upon "flask=enforcing" when
XSM_FLASK=n"):
> On 29/05/2020 10:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > While the behavior to ignore this option without FLASK support was
> > properly documented, it is still somewhat surprisi
On 29.05.2020 12:07, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 29/05/2020 10:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> While the behavior to ignore this option without FLASK support was
>> properly documented, it is still somewhat surprising to someone using
>> this option and then still _not_ getting the assumed security. Add a
On 29/05/2020 10:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> While the behavior to ignore this option without FLASK support was
> properly documented, it is still somewhat surprising to someone using
> this option and then still _not_ getting the assumed security. Add a
> 2nd handler for the command line option for t
While the behavior to ignore this option without FLASK support was
properly documented, it is still somewhat surprising to someone using
this option and then still _not_ getting the assumed security. Add a
2nd handler for the command line option for the XSM_FLASK=n case, and
invoke panic() when the
