From: dwalsh@redhat.com (Daniel J Walsh)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:29:45 -0400
Subject: [refpolicy] unconfined_cronjob_t et al
In-Reply-To: <201108181731.39986.russell@coker.com.au>
References: <201108181731.39986.russell@coker.com.au>
Message-ID: <4E4E3B19.7080302@redhat.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/18/2011 03:31 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
> Is anyone actually making use of domains such as
> unconfined_cronjob_t?
> 
> Is there any reason why I shouldn't just unilaterally remove them
> from the Debian policy for Squeeze regardless of what Red Hat and
> upstream are doing?
> 
> It seems to me that using a different domain for cron jobs causes
> pain with no gain.
> 

I don't think so.  I believe cronjobs in Red Hat os's are running
cronjobs as the usertype.  I would say this should just be removed.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk5OOxkACgkQrlYvE4MpobMmlACcCDzLvpMW7LQ+BQPcxQtMrgYR
hsUAoNehIAV+dNUWPtI0tAEAyHrfk2bn
=xqvS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----