From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from jazzband.ncsc.mil (jazzband.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.4]) by tycho.ncsc.mil (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14878 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:49:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from jazzband.ncsc.mil (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jazzband.ncsc.mil with ESMTP id h14FnDI24286 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:49:13 GMT Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [66.187.233.31]) by jazzband.ncsc.mil with ESMTP id h14FnAf24278 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:49:11 GMT Message-ID: <3E3FE0EF.8030105@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:49:03 -0500 From: Daniel J Walsh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom CC: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: SELinux question? References: <200301271320.IAA05862@moss-shockers.ncsc.mil> <200302012351.48969.russell@coker.com.au> <3E3F72AE.1070503@redhat.com> <20030204154613.A7115@lemuria.org> In-Reply-To: <20030204154613.A7115@lemuria.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070003000607060305040602" Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov --------------070003000607060305040602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 --------------070003000607060305040602 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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
--------------070003000607060305040602-- -- 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.