On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 00:07 +0300, Ahmed Kamal wrote: >> - Autofix seems like a good idea >> - Perhaps Exempt button should only appear, if AutoFix doesn't work >> (not sure how to detect that) >> - To avoid a system user clicking Exempt, perhaps Exempt should only >> exempt the application only this time. i.e., when the application is >> launched again, it will generate a selinux warning again. That way, >> the user still reports the issue to get it properly fixed, but at the >> time, has the tools to get his work done and his apps running when he >> needs them >> > > NO NO NO ... DOING IT WRONG. > > Don't ever ask the user for this kind of info, it would be better to go > ping a remote server and download a newer policy than ask the user. Well I think in his suggested use case, he's assuming a genuine bug in the policy which hasn't yet been fixed. > The user is not going to have a freaking clue wtf exempting means. Agreed > Didn't you guys see the Mac vs Windows ADs on TV? That came to mind, was kinda scary. > kerneloops does it right, opt in, send somewhere useful, next step if > somewhere useful has seen the AVC and we knows its safe, maybe send > something back saying continue and ignore, but don't involve the user in > the mess other than asking for opt-in. This may be a good idea. Have the service make a decision to continue deny on temporarily allow based on available knowledge from the server. How much private info if any would be in the average AVC? -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
