But SELinux is not new, its only that it is turned on in SL5 by default. I don't recall the sites clamouring for the the experiments to ensure that their code worked with SELinux on SL4, so I don't think we have a very strong case to demand that experiments fix all their code before we roll out SL5.
Derek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Davies, BGE (Brian)
> Sent: 13 August 2009 11:06
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Request for sites to move WNs to SL5
>
>
> My worry is that one of the minor "tweaks" could be disabling
> (part/all
> of) SELinux ( which of course might/might not be acceptable
> to some/all
> sites.
> Brian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kostas Georgiou
> Sent: 13 August 2009 10:57
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Request for sites to move WNs to SL5
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 02:39:18PM +0100, Coles, Jeremy (STFC,RAL,ESC)
> wrote:
>
> > There are already SL5 instances at RAL, Glasgow and Oxford. Our
> > original plan was to wait for full confirmation from these sites of
> > any remaining problems before asking further sites to
> migrate, but we
> > now have assurances from the MB (and its constituent
> members) that the
>
> > experiments are ready.
>
> Does this means that the experiments fixed the problems with
> their code
> i.e. ancient versions of root requiring the heap to be
> executable or are
> they asking to lower the security of the system?
>
> Kostas
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|