On Thursday, 21 January 2021 2:06:25 AM AEDT Dominick Grift wrote: > >> Can you explain why you added this? > > > > Apart from the obvious that some program wanted it, no. I'll remove that > > bit and add it again with a note if it's necessary. Did you like the > > rest of that patch? > > Yes and thats my beef with this. "some program wanted it". sysadm_t is a > shell domain. Any programs that need this should, in my view, ideally be > targeted. If you dont want that then use unconfined_t instead and be > done. > > I dont want sysadm_t to become a "drunken unconfined_t". Fair point. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
