| |||||||||||||
Walsh: Google Chrome PolicyWalsh: Google Chrome PolicyPosted Oct 12, 2009 20:09 UTC (Mon) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285)In reply to: Walsh: Google Chrome Policy by mosfet Parent article: Walsh: Google Chrome Policy
Burn, heretic!
No, really, SELinux has worked fine on my FC11 desktop system.
I had to look up some stuff to figure out how to allow SELinux and Samba to share a USB drive. However, it is kind of comforting to know that there is no way Samba is going to run around loose on my hard drives.
(Log in to post comments)
Walsh: Google Chrome Policy Posted Oct 13, 2009 5:45 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I've used selinux on desktop fedora systems for years. There have been occasional glitches, but overall it's worked well, and by now the rough edges have been sanded away.
Walsh: Google Chrome Policy Posted Oct 14, 2009 9:21 UTC (Wed) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
>No, really, SELinux has worked fine on my FC11 desktop system.
Depends on your view of what is 'fine': if I understood correctly, the SELinux policy described prevents Chrome uploading files, which I bet quite a few users will find annoying!
Walsh: Google Chrome Policy Posted Oct 14, 2009 9:27 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Can you explain why the policy would prevent Chrome from upload files? Note that Chromium is not in the Fedora repository yet nor is the policy changes. So this is not applicable to Fedora 11 anyway. In Rawhide, I don't have a problem using Chromium.
Walsh: Google Chrome Policy Posted Oct 22, 2009 7:10 UTC (Thu) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
>Can you explain why the policy would prevent Chrome from upload files?
Because it's written in the conclusion of Dan Walsh's blog:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding it, I'm not a Chrome or SELinux expert..
|
|||||||||||||