Re[12]: RSBAC v1.1.1 problem

From: Keith Matthews <keith_m@sweeney.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re[12]: RSBAC v1.1.1 problem
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 20:53:46 +0100 (BST)

Next Article (by Subject): Re: Re[12]: RSBAC v1.1.1 problem Amon Ott
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: Re[10]: RSBAC v1.1.1 problem Amon Ott
Next in Thread: Re: Re[12]: RSBAC v1.1.1 problem Amon Ott
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:41:41 +0200 Amon Ott <Amon Ott <ao@rsbac.org>> wrote=
:

> On Die, 17 Apr 2001 Keith Matthews wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:04:40 +0200 Amon Ott <Amon Ott <ao@rsbac.org>> w=
rote:
> > >=20
> > > This requirement is sure important. However, I never had problems wit=
h my REG
> > > samples. Coould you please test your modules with pre3, when it has c=
ome out?
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Will do, however I'll have to wait for a 2.2.18 or 2.2.19 version of
> > course as ext3 in its current form is not available for 2.4 kernels.
>=20
> OK. This also gives some ext3 test info.

I'm using ext3 already. I just have to get it to work sensibly. More on
this tomorrow. I suspect I have set up something incorrectly and have the
wrong owner somewhere.

>=20
> > > The Makefile has now been changed to modify EXTRAVERSION, if RSBAC is=
 on.
> > >=20
> > > Do I have to make the version change optional?
> > > =20
> >=20
> > Good question, and I'm not sure I know the best answer.=20
> >=20
> > One point that occurred to me was that it could be driven from the
> > 'include RSBAC' config setting. I.e. if the user has configured RSBAC i=
n
> > then the extraversion should have the rsbac indicating suffix appended =
(if
> > not already there) and have it removed (if present) if the user has
> > requested a 'standard'  kernel. This would get around the need for 2
> > source trees but would involve a rather messy config build operation. I=
'm
> > not really sure I like it as it appears to be 'not really necessary'
> > complexity. It would require the modules to be rebuilt of course, but t=
hat
> > might be necessary anyway.
>=20
> You just described the current behaviour, except the change not being aut=
omatic.
> :)
>=20

Not sure we are talking the same thing here. The current behaviour does
this _if_ the RSBAC kernel mods are applied, or so I understand. What I
was (half) proposing was that the extraversion change would be applied
_if_ the RSBAC mods were applied _and_ RSBAc had been selected in the confi=
g.


--
Keith Matthews

Frequentous Consultants  - Linux Services,=20
=09=09Oracle development & database administration


-
To unsubscribe from the rsbac list, send a mail to
majordomo@rsbac.org with
unsubscribe rsbac
as single line in the body.

Go to Compuniverse LWGate Home Page.