> On Oct 28, 2016, at 8:41 AM, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/28/2016 04:20 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 19:32 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On Oct 27, 2016, at 12:22 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> Can you say a bit more about your plans regarding Smack support in
>>>> meta-security? A recipe for the userspace tool and the kernel config is
>>>> a start, but for a fully functional Smack-enabled image, the rootfs also
>>>> needs to be set up a bit differently.
>>> FWIW meta-security seems to be right place for smack related infra.
>> I don't disagree :-) But it would be good to know more about the rest of
>> the infrastructure before adding (or reviewing) bits and pieces that by
>> themselves don't do much.
> I start of with basic support and refine over time.  Your statement can apply for many components within meta-secuirty. I recently started adding test images. Providing configurations or solutions for a niche area is outside the scope for this general layer, IMHO. I could be convinced  otherwise. I tend not to wait for 100% solution before sending out bits for review.

its a good start. If you have some more patches on the way to complete
the solution, that would be good to share.

> 
> thanks for your input.
> 
> Regards,
> Armin
>> 
>