From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43D016A1.6010004@cornell.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:45:53 -0700 From: Ivan Gyurdiev MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Brindle CC: SELinux List , selinuxdev , Stephen Smalley Subject: Re: [PATCH] libsemanage/semanage - permission check for semanage References: <1137707155.17672.2.camel@twoface.columbia.tresys.com> In-Reply-To: <1137707155.17672.2.camel@twoface.columbia.tresys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov > - chance semanage_is_managed to use can_write instead of create_store > for access check > Why should semanage_is_managed do an access check? How does the lack of access mean that the store isn't managed? I see in seobject, both is_managed, and can_write are called now, meaning two access checks (and shouldn't they be in the opposite order). -- 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.