Tom wrote:

>On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:58:38AM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>  
>
>>Why are certain applications (ls, cp, cd) ported to use SELinux with the 
>>standard names, while others
>>(spasswd, schfn) have a prefix added?  
>>    
>>
>
>ls, ps and others are modified versions of the originals.
>
>spasswd, and the other s* programs are wrappers around the original
>tools. For various reasons, this was the only or better way of making
>them SE-aware in those cases.
>
>
>
>  
>
So they did it because it was easier to wrap the application then to 
change the code, correct?
In the other cases they could not wrap the apps so they went in and 
changed the code.  
I would like to know if there was any other reason to use the s* syntax, 
or all things being equil
you would replace the passwd command with a SELinux aware passwd command?

Dan

Dan