[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: selinux not enabled



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 acm org>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]