On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:57 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > | On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 11:58 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > | > |> One question nobody has been able to answer to my satisfaction yet: Why > |> would it be essential that SELinux can be disabled from the installer > |> vs. from the installed system? > | One point: Once SELinux had been active, it can cause problems, despite > | it had been disabled, afterwards: > | C.f.: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453365 > | > | Ralf > | > | > This is a bug in code, and I am not sure this would not have happened if > SELinux was disabled in the first place. Neither am I. My point is: kernel-/filesystem-side of SELinux apparently is not entirely transparent to applications and may disturb "arbitrary, known to work" applications, even if SELinux is off. In my case, I repeatedly had SELinux active on the machine exposing the issue from the BZ, and had encountered the broken "patch" after having switched SELinux off. Having a look into the patch, which seems to have fixed "patch", I am inclined to think the actual cause for this breakdown is inside of the kernel or the filesystem. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
