selinux versus chcon

[Stephen Smalley]

On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 16:01 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Eric Paris <eparis at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 14:49 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
> >
> >> If so... why use chcon versus the semanage/restorecon technique?
> >> or if my assesement is wrong... can someone point me to a better
> >> explanation/tutorial?
> 
> ... snip ...
> 
> > So semanage+restorecon == will last, chcon == will likely get blown away
> > and make you angry later.
> 
> Thanks for confirming that for me.
> 
> Now my next issue is 'apparently' unknown contexts.
> 
> My original RPM spec file added the 'httpd_sys_rw_content_t' context
> to a directory.  Which was great for the versions of Fedora I was testing
> on, but now in RHEL 5.6 semanage complains with: "type
> 'httpd_sys_rw_content_t' not defined."
> 
> So it seems that my %post section of my RPM file has to either 'know'
> what distribution or version of selinux support is installed so I can avoid
> attempting to use types that are not defined, or having some way of finding
> out what 'types' are available 'in this OS' so that I issue the 'appropriate
> commands'.
> 
> How can I find out what 'types' are available'?

seinfo -t

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency