Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SE-PgSQL patch review

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.

OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-02 02:16:48
Subject: Re: Page-level version upgrade (was: Block-level CRC checks)
Previous:From: KaiGai KoheiDate: 2009-12-02 01:53:14
Subject: Re: SE-PgSQL patch review

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group