From: sven.vermeulen@siphos.be (Sven Vermeulen) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 14:02:49 +0200 Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH/RFC 2/2] Add minidlna policy In-Reply-To: <1367564909.27309.49.camel@d30> References: <20130501183657.GA25116@siphos.be> <20130501183845.GC25116@siphos.be> <1367509285.27309.34.camel@d30> <20130502192347.GA25444@siphos.be> <1367524372.27309.45.camel@d30> <1367564909.27309.49.camel@d30> Message-ID: To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com On May 3, 2013 9:08 AM, "Dominick Grift" wrote: > Looks like compat_net support may have been completely removed: > > http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2009/03/27/144 Now i'm completely lost. Does that mean that the "old", non-labeled approach is not used anymore? I could've sworn that node_t and netif_t were still used. > i think we need more and better, practical examples of how to use > secmark and how secmark can be configured to match the old compat_net > functionality > > There is one nice how to by Dan Walsh on Linux.com, but other than that > documentation is lacking in my view Ack. And also how the default behavior is if no secmark/labeling is used... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://oss.tresys.com/pipermail/refpolicy/attachments/20130503/60918c90/attachment.html