On Monday 26 April 2010, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 22:06 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > Any objections to the attached mock patch? > > I welcome the bugfix, but that return statement is a little awkward from > a pythonic view point. I would have trouble figuring out wtf it was > trying to do if I ran into this code without the context you gave it > above.
Ok, do you find the attached revised version clearer?
From c1d13d46cb396bc0b1ae2dd20d0b076a0ff95e30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ville=20Skytt=C3=A4?= <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:59:13 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] Check SELinux state from /selinux/enforce instead of /usr/sbin/getenforce. Cleans up an error message when getenforce is not installed, and fixes wrong outcome from selinuxEnabled() when SELinux is additionally disabled. --- py/mock/util.py | 15 +++++++-------- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/py/mock/util.py b/py/mock/util.py index 3322cd5..764ed04 100644 --- a/py/mock/util.py +++ b/py/mock/util.py @@ -263,14 +263,13 @@ def logOutput(fds, logger, returnOutput=1, start=0, timeout=0): decorate(traceLog()) def selinuxEnabled(): - p = subprocess.Popen(["/usr/sbin/getenforce"], - shell=True, - stdout=subprocess.PIPE, - close_fds=True) - p.wait() - if p.stdout.read().strip() == "Disabled": - return False - return True + """Check if SELinux is enabled (enforcing or permissive).""" + try: + if open("/selinux/enforce").read().strip() in ("1", "0"): + return True + except: + pass + return False # logger = # output = [1|0] -- 1.7.0.1
-- buildsys mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/buildsys
