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

Re: How best get rid of SELinux?



On Sunday 23 September 2007, Tim wrote:
>On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 18:00 +0000, Beartooth wrote:
>> And thereby hangs an old sad tale. I looked at that -- and found
>> it utterly incomprehensible.
>
>I think the naming of the contexts, themselves, were a really bad
>incomprehensible thing.
>
>Looking in my home space, things have: user_u:object_r:user_home_t
>
>What's a user_u, or object_r, or user_home_t?
>
>Or a PNG file in my webserver directory:
>user_u:object_r:httpd_sys_content_t
>
>They're not at all intuitive.  What's a "u," "r," or "t"?  I've no
>choice but to read a manual to work that out, I couldn't even guess at
>it.  But a quick look through a few of the SELinux manuals doesn't
>explain what any of it means.  And why would a PNG file be any sort of
>system content?  That sounds more like something you'd assign to a
>webserver CGI file.
>
>If we had logically sensible context names like "system,"
>"application-executable," "application-non-executable,"
>"users-personal," "serveable-local-only," "serveable-public,"
>"serveable-web," "serveable-ftp," "serveable-http+ftp," etc., we'd have
>a fighting chance at understanding what they meant and applying the
>right ones.
>
Hot diggity dawg!  A voice of sanity in this house of Babel.  Paint this 
gentlemans phone number on the wall or something.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
There's nothing wrong with teenagers that reasoning with them won't aggravate.


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