On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Sven Vermeulen
<sven.vermeulen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- policycoreutils-2.1.10/run_init/run_init.c 2011-12-21
> 18:46:04.000000000 +0100
> +++ policycoreutils-2.1.13.pristine/run_init/run_init.c 2012-09-29
> 11:08:41.267304041 +0200
> @@ -406,6 +406,13 @@
> new_context);
> exit(-1);
> }
> + if (! access("/usr/sbin/open_init_pty", X_OK)) {
> + if (execvp(argv[1], argv + 1)) {
> + perror("execvp");
> + exit(-1);
> + }
> + return 0;
> + }
Shouldn't this be "if(access(...))" instead of "if(! access(...))"?
After all, if the access is ok (returns 0), then with the current
patch the embraced code is executed, which doesn't use open_init_pty.
And if access isn't ok, then it uses open_init_pty (which will fail,
since the access is not ok)...
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
