Le vendredi 03 janvier 2014 à 18:21 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek a écrit : > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:48:49AM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > >> Should systemd warn users if selinux is not installed,enabled and fail > > >> or? > > > > > > It all depend. Either we are consistent with the other settings ( ie, > > > setting a syscall filter will fail if not supported on the kernel ), and > > > so > > > fail, or we decide that selinux is special and we should silently ignore > > > failure if it cannot be applied. > > > > > > I choose the first one for the first patch, but adding a conditional would > > > be trivial if we decide to silently ignore if the setting cannot be > > > applied. > I think the usual style of "-" as the first character of RHS meaning that > the setting can be ignored should be used. > > In general, if selinux=0 is used, or selinux support is not compiled > in, those options should not result in failure. So the algorithm should > be: if disabled, ignore, if enabled, and impossible to apply, fail, unless > "-" was prefixed.
Good idea, i have coded that, I will test and send it later. -- Michael Scherer _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
