Re: Minor change to getsebool.

[Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>]

Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 11:12 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>   
>> Should be non fatail when executing getsebool -a.  I am starting to 
>> label the booleans and
>> different user roles will only be able to manipulate certain booleans.
>>
>> So we need to change
>>
>> getsebool -a will only show booleans that domain can manipulate.
>> Currenly it will report the errrors that it can not read.  We can either 
>> add a qualifier to silence these or a new option to get only the list of 
>> the ones I can manipulate.
>>     
>
> Actually, I'd tend to think we could just silence them by default if
> errno is EACCES.
>
> One other possible change to getsebool would be to make it fully
> equivalent to setsebool, i.e. add a -P option and have it query
> libsemanage to get persistent boolean settings in that case.
>
>   
Then it needs to move from libselinux to policycoreutils.

--
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.