Re: Bug#545691: diverting telinit
On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:21:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> > Why are they not able to ignore the errors from telinit? All checked
>> > packages uses this to ask init to reexecute itself and free old library
>> > references. Nothing in this is critical to the usability of the packages
>> > themself or the system.
>> Even if the security system has changed? I dont't think so
>> (better safe than sorry).
> Which security system? Is there a list of packages trying to reexec
> init? The listed bugs only show libsepol and libselinux, both do
> nothing in respect of that.
So far, I hav not needed to. But I can see where there is a
major change in libselinux (we are at the same soname so far, so this
has not happened), and the new libselinux is needed to not have people
bypass init.d's security setup by exploiting a bug in the old system
(perhaps a change is needed in libselinux/libsepol to even load new
policy). If that happens, not being able to re-exec init can be grounds
for a failure to boot (as it is now if you enable selinux and init
can't load policy).
> Selinux can only be activated on boot anyway.
What does this have to do with the price of rice in china? The
scenario of interest is a system with selinux enabled and in enforcing,
and a upgrade of security libraries (and policy, perhaps).
There are more old drunkards than old doctors.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C