selinux not enabled
Sjoerd Mullender
sjoerd at acm.org
Sat Apr 9 17:32:00 UTC 2005
Sjoerd Mullender wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>Hi
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This should be SELINUX=enabled
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The comments in /etc/selingux/config and the FAQ both say
>>>SELINUX=permissive, and neither one mentions "enabled". The FAQ says to
>>>use "permissive" first to check whether there are any problems before
>>>taking the plunge. Is "enabled" really correct, because then it's a bug
>>>in both the FAQ and the default config file that they are not mentioned.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes, Enabled is correct. if you want to suggest improvements to the FAQ
>>please file them in bugzilla.redhat.com against the document
>
>
> Then what does "enabled" mean? Is it the same as "permissive" or
> "enforcing", or is it something else altogether? If "enforcing", how do
> I get "permissive" behavior?
>
> I'll give it a swing now and see whether this does what I want.
Ok, no luck. I don't see any difference between enabled and permissive.
sestatus still says SELinux is disabled.
Also, there is no mention of an selinuxfs mount in /proc/mounts (which
I'd expect based on what's in rc.sysinit).
--
Sjoerd Mullender <sjoerd at acm.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3931 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20050409/418cc5ae/attachment-0001.bin>
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list