From: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SE-PgSQL patch review |
Date: | 2009-12-02 02:07:19 |
Message-ID: | 4B15CBD7.7050102@ak.jp.nec.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 14:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 20:28 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
>>>> This is totally separate from the really important question of whether
>>>> SE-Linux has a future, and another about whether, if SE-Linux has a
>>>> future, PostgreSQL needs to go there.
>>> Why would we think that it doesn't?
>> Have you noticed anyone except Red Hat taking it seriously?
>
> I just did a little research and it appears the other two big names in
> this world (Novel and Ubuntu) are using something called App Armor.
As far as I can see, SUSE, Ubuntu and Debian provide SELinux option.
But they are more conservative than RedHat/Fedora, because it is not
enabled in the default installation.
I don't think it is unpreferable decision. Users can choose the option
by themself according to requirements in the system.
Thanks,
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-02 02:16:48 | Re: Page-level version upgrade (was: Block-level CRC checks) |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-12-02 01:53:14 | Re: SE-PgSQL patch review |