Re: [PATCH] warn on missing selinux files

[Jim Meyering]

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
...
>>> Ok?  Should I test /selinux instead of /selinux/enforce?
>>
>> That would be better, since a system for which $(getenforce) reports
>> "Permissive", that /selinux/enforce won't exist.
>> It might be better still simply to see if getenforce can be run.
>
> getenforce is not installed on a Debian non-SELinux-enabled system,
> still such a system has /selinux and can use libselinux.

Hi Paolo,

Perhaps we can view that as a feature.
Is it worthwhile to issue your new warning on such a system,
given its lack of real SELinux functionality?

Actually, just testing for /selinux is fine.
An extra warning won't hurt, and might help.
For those who don't yet use SELinux, it might pique their curiosity
to the point that a few will investigate and eventually enable it.