On Mon, November 3, 2014 4:22 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 11/3/2014 10:52 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:59:26AM -0500,JCURREY@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Turned out to be selinux.
>> I hope you figured out what was wrong with the SELinux attributes on
>> the files. Turning off SELinux and calling it fixed isn't really a
>> solution.
>
> indeed, akin to removing the front door because the key sticks sometimes.
>
There is another way to look at it. It may add too much sophistication to
to the electric wiring of your house, then due to added bugs sometimes the
locks to front doors may jump open on their own... ;-)
I'm referring to controversy of SElinux: not only it can be disabled on
the fly (thus making it easily defeated), but it adds hundreds of
thousands of lines of code to the kernel, thus quite likely introducing
bugs (likely with security implications). Some were saying it from the
very beginning... and indeed there was security patch for SElinux not long
ago...
Just mentioning to add some balance. Nothing is ultimately good (or bad),
there is no panacea.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
