On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 22:06 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Any objections to the attached mock patch?
I welcome the bugfix, but that return statement is a little awkward from a pythonic view point. I would have trouble figuring out wtf it was trying to do if I ran into this code without the context you gave it above.
On Monday 26 April 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 22:06 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Any objections to the attached mock patch?
I welcome the bugfix, but that return statement is a little awkward from a pythonic view point. I would have trouble figuring out wtf it was trying to do if I ran into this code without the context you gave it above.
Ok, do you find the attached revised version clearer?
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 19:02 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Ok, do you find the attached revised version clearer?
Does /syslinux/enforce exist in cases where we're not either permissive or enforcing? If it only exists in those cases, couldn't we just do a "if os.path.exists()" call on it?
If not, then what you have looks fine.
On Monday 26 April 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 19:02 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Ok, do you find the attached revised version clearer?
Does /syslinux/enforce exist in cases where we're not either permissive or enforcing?
I don't know, but it doesn't in any SELinux disabled boxes I checked. On the other hand nothing prevents me from just creating the file there if I'm inclined to shoot myself in the foot.
Another equally easy fix for this issue would be to use libselinux-python to do the check, but that'd introduce a dependency.
On Monday 26 April 2010 11:10:26 am Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 19:02 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Ok, do you find the attached revised version clearer?
Does /syslinux/enforce exist in cases where we're not either permissive or enforcing? If it only exists in those cases, couldn't we just do a "if os.path.exists()" call on it?
If not, then what you have looks fine.
[ausil@x86-05 ~]$ ls /selinux/ [ausil@x86-05 ~]$ /usr/sbin/getenforce Disabled
/selinux is empty when its disabled
Dennis
On Monday 26 April 2010, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 22:06 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Any objections to the attached mock patch?
I welcome the bugfix, but that return statement is a little awkward from a pythonic view point. I would have trouble figuring out wtf it was trying to do if I ran into this code without the context you gave it above.
Ok, do you find the attached revised version clearer?
I've committed this patch, it can be refined later if need be.
buildsys@lists.fedoraproject.org