Proposal: Improving SELinux <--> user interaction on Fedora - Kerneloops for SELinux

Daniel J Walsh dwalsh at
Fri Jul 18 12:51:46 UTC 2008

Hash: SHA1

Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Ahmed Kamal
> <email.ahmedkamal at> wrote:
>> - Autofix seems like a good idea
>> - Perhaps Exempt button should only appear, if AutoFix doesn't work
>> (not sure how to detect that)
>> - To avoid a system user clicking Exempt, perhaps Exempt should only
>> exempt the application only this time. i.e., when the application is
>> launched again, it will generate a selinux warning again. That way,
>> the user still reports the issue to get it properly fixed, but at the
>> time, has the tools to get his work done and his apps running when he
>> needs them
> While this doesn't avoid the Vistaesque problem, it may be a fair
> compromise to consider.
> One more issue however, is there any way to hide the unimportant
> denials? There are some denials that have no observable side effects.
Sure if you could write code to understand that this is a denial without
side effect.  So far I have not figured out a way to do this.
setroubleshoot does have an ignore button also.  Which will allow a user
to ignore avc's that he has deemed to be not important.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list