On 6/3/2014 02:58, PolarStorm wrote:
But it would be more interesting to hear why you think all of them are
"doomed"?
Okay.
Option 1, Cygwin supports its own flavor of SELinux, incompatible with
all others. Do I really need to tell you why this is a bad idea?
Option 2, Cygwin picks one of the three preexisting flavors to emulate.
Most likely reason to fail: Windows's MAC system -- such as it is --
doesn't work even vaguely like SELinux, so Cygwin cannot emulate SELinux
in terms of Windows kernel mechanisms. The best it could do is provide
a soft emulation that only works among programs based on Cygwin, and
then only to the extent that they play by the rules and make all their
I/O calls via cygwin1.dll. As soon as they bypass the Cygwin DLL, the
benefits of SELinux go away. You do know what the M in MAC stands for,
right? It'd be like using velvet ropes to fence off a preschool playground.
Option 3, emulate all preexisting SELinux flavors. Most likely reason
to fail: Take Option 2 and multiply it by 3. Then ask yourself who will
do all that low-value work.
Thanks for taking the time to give a proper answer, I very much appreciate
it.
My first post was a proper answer. It gave you a perfectly legitimate
solution to the problem. The fact that you didn't *like* the answer
does not rob it of legitimacy.
One of the biggest mistakes people make when asking for help is
specifying the solution in advance.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
