just to make sure for some reason firefox is really lagging when the
policy is in enforcement mode. I can check again to see if I have
allowed all the rules, but is anybody else seeing this?
Justin P. Mattock
Hello Justin !
No problem whatsoever with firefox here.
Regards,
Guido
On Wed, 09/03/2011 at 13.30 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> just to make sure for some reason firefox is really lagging when the
> policy is in enforcement mode. I can check again to see if I have
> allowed all the rules, but is anybody else seeing this?
>
> Justin P. Mattock
> _______________________________________________
> refpolicy mailing list
> refpolicy at oss.tresys.com
> http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy
>
On 03/09/2011 01:43 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> Hello Justin !
>
> No problem whatsoever with firefox here.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guido
>
>
hmm... something must be wrong then with my setup(built from source
without xulrunner just plain firefox). out of curiosity I can try an
older policy to see, and also rebuild firefox to make sure things are
set correctly.
Thanks for verifying for me!!
Justin P. Mattock
Have a look if this helps out (from Sven Vermeulen
<[email protected]>):
[PATCH 05/15] Allow mozilla/firefox to manage tempfiles
timestamped Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:11:21 +0100
firefox is not the most straightforward thing to build. Sometimes (not
very often though) I ended up in an unusable build for example.
Symptoms ? Logs ?
It might also depend on the specific version, especially if it is a new
one. Is 4.0 out ?
Regards,
Guido
On Wed, 09/03/2011 at 13.58 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 03/09/2011 01:43 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> > Hello Justin !
> >
> > No problem whatsoever with firefox here.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Guido
> >
> >
>
> hmm... something must be wrong then with my setup(built from source
> without xulrunner just plain firefox). out of curiosity I can try an
> older policy to see, and also rebuild firefox to make sure things are
> set correctly.
>
> Thanks for verifying for me!!
>
> Justin P. Mattock
>
On 03/09/2011 02:14 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> Have a look if this helps out (from Sven Vermeulen
> <[email protected]>):
>
> [PATCH 05/15] Allow mozilla/firefox to manage tempfiles
> timestamped Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:11:21 +0100
>
> firefox is not the most straightforward thing to build. Sometimes (not
> very often though) I ended up in an unusable build for example.
>
> Symptoms ? Logs ?
>
> It might also depend on the specific version, especially if it is a new
> one. Is 4.0 out ?
>
> Regards,
>
> Guido
>
the version I am using is 3.6.13(did look at 4 but decided to just build
the stable version(which is outdated probably now))without xulrunner
being the main base for the lib*'s
Justin P. Mattock
On Wed, 09/03/2011 at 14.24 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On 03/09/2011 02:14 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> > Have a look if this helps out (from Sven Vermeulen
> > <[email protected]>):
> >
> > [PATCH 05/15] Allow mozilla/firefox to manage tempfiles
> > timestamped Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:11:21 +0100
> >
> > firefox is not the most straightforward thing to build. Sometimes (not
> > very often though) I ended up in an unusable build for example.
> >
> > Symptoms ? Logs ?
> >
> > It might also depend on the specific version, especially if it is a new
> > one. Is 4.0 out ?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Guido
> >
>
> the version I am using is 3.6.13(did look at 4 but decided to just build
> the stable version(which is outdated probably now))without xulrunner
> being the main base for the lib*'s
I had no problems running that version with refpolicy up to 15022011. If
it is the latest stable version then I cannot see how that would be
outdated. I suppose refpolicy is not based on unstable components.
Regards,
Guido
On 03/09/2011 02:52 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> On Wed, 09/03/2011 at 14.24 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> On 03/09/2011 02:14 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
>>> Have a look if this helps out (from Sven Vermeulen
>>> <[email protected]>):
>>>
>>> [PATCH 05/15] Allow mozilla/firefox to manage tempfiles
>>> timestamped Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:11:21 +0100
>>>
>>> firefox is not the most straightforward thing to build. Sometimes (not
>>> very often though) I ended up in an unusable build for example.
>>>
>>> Symptoms ? Logs ?
>>>
>>> It might also depend on the specific version, especially if it is a new
>>> one. Is 4.0 out ?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Guido
>>>
>>
>> the version I am using is 3.6.13(did look at 4 but decided to just build
>> the stable version(which is outdated probably now))without xulrunner
>> being the main base for the lib*'s
>
> I had no problems running that version with refpolicy up to 15022011. If
> it is the latest stable version then I cannot see how that would be
> outdated. I suppose refpolicy is not based on unstable components.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guido
>
>
then its probably something over here that I need to look at on the
system(clfs)
Justin P. Mattock
On 03/09/2011 02:52 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> On Wed, 09/03/2011 at 14.24 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> On 03/09/2011 02:14 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
>>> Have a look if this helps out (from Sven Vermeulen
>>> <[email protected]>):
>>>
>>> [PATCH 05/15] Allow mozilla/firefox to manage tempfiles
>>> timestamped Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:11:21 +0100
>>>
>>> firefox is not the most straightforward thing to build. Sometimes (not
>>> very often though) I ended up in an unusable build for example.
>>>
>>> Symptoms ? Logs ?
>>>
>>> It might also depend on the specific version, especially if it is a new
>>> one. Is 4.0 out ?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Guido
>>>
>>
>> the version I am using is 3.6.13(did look at 4 but decided to just build
>> the stable version(which is outdated probably now))without xulrunner
>> being the main base for the lib*'s
>
> I had no problems running that version with refpolicy up to 15022011. If
> it is the latest stable version then I cannot see how that would be
> outdated. I suppose refpolicy is not based on unstable components.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guido
>
>
alright... I went and rewrote all the rules seems fine now(must have
been something strange going on!)
Justin P. Mattock