[apparmor] PUx permissions?

[Steve Beattie]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 02:55:30PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> On 04/19/2011 02:35 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> > [1] Long ago, we used to have a global paranoid mode toggle, which
> >     required that any new process that was exec()ed had to have a
> >     profile defined or the exec would fail. I don't believe that
> >     exists anymore as it was generally not useful, but even if it
>
> It doesn't, and I don't think I ever even knew about it, but back
> then all px transitions where what we call pux today, so it had more
> utility than today.

Correct.

> I really don't see a need for it, so unless some one can come up
> with a really good reason for it.  Its not coming back any time soon

To be clear, I wasn't proposing that it get re-introduced, as I still
agree that its not generally useful. I just thought the historical
aside might be interesting, but I couldn't guarantee with 100%
certainty that it had been pulled -- and I didn't know that you didn't
know about it. :-)

-- 
Steve Beattie
<sbeattie at ubuntu.com>
http://NxNW.org/~steve/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/attachments/20110419/5778af72/attachment.pgp>