On 12/08/09 16:48, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 04:32:48PM +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
> On 12/08/09 16:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> This is a pretty uncontroversial patch which just allows the
>> selinux=? and enforcing=? flags on the kernel command line
>> to be controlled.
>>
>> Currently libguestfs unconditionally passes selinux=0. By default
>> this patch does the same thing, but allows programs to enable SELinux
>> in the kernel and/or set it to enforcing mode.
> Patch looks ok except that we shouldn't include the enforcing flag. I
> can't conceive of any reason we'd want SELinux in enforcing mode in the
> appliance. If selinux=1, then assume enforcing=0.
Does it do any harm (now that I've written the code anyway)?
It adds another command line option to be maintained and documented.
Matt
--
Matthew Booth, RHCA, RHCSS
Red Hat Engineering, Virtualisation Team
M: +44 (0)7977 267231
GPG ID: D33C3490
GPG FPR: 3733 612D 2D05 5458 8A8A 1600 3441 EA19 D33C 3490