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.
> I work for Red Hat and have drunk a reasonable amount of the SELinux
> koolaid, but I can't help observing that it's had very limited uptake
> outside Red Hat. It's not clear that there are many people who find
> it a cost-effective solution to their problems. As for the number of
> people prepared to write custom policy for it --- which would be
> required to use it effectively for almost any PG application ---
> I could probably hold a house party for all of them and not break a
> sweat serving drinks.
Your argument certainly holds weight. The only thing I would suggest
outside of that is... it may only be Red Hat but that is a darn big hat
in Linux enterprise space.
Joshua D. Drake
> regards, tom lane
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
If the world pushes look it in the eye and GRR. Then push back harder. - Salamander
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2009-12-01 21:21:59|
|Subject: Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-12-01 21:20:12|
|Subject: Re: Application name patch - v4 |