Re: setsebool

[Karl MacMillan <kmacmillan@mentalrootkit.com>]

On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 07:34 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Thursday 13 July 2006 06:54, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> > Is this a problem in the Kernel or libraries?  Or just the way it is?
> 
> I think the granted statement comes from policy. I was thinking that audit of 
> granting when changing booleans would be dropped from policy when the 2.6.17 
> kernel was out.
> 

The kernel also generates a message with all of the boolean states in
addition to the auditallow. When wrote that my thought was that there
would not be that many booleans and printing them all would make it
easier to see the state of the system in the logs. Obviously I was wrong
about the number of booleans.

The message is printed from security_set_bools in services.c. Should
this just go in favor of an audit message or be changed to just print
the state of the changed booleans?

Karl

> -Steve
> 
> 
> --
> This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
> If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
> the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
> 

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.