It makes busybox invoke the libselinux library function to load the binary
policy right at system start-up. It was successfully tested on a mini-SELinux
system. Note: requires recent libselinux. I'm using 1.28.
else is a kernel bug. Both 2.4 and 2.6 should get this right now. This
should fix the bug IraquiGeek is seeing (although killall still needs to
be fixed.)
The init applet will restart (re-exec) itsself when it
receives a SIGHUP. However, just before it enters its
main loop, it resets SIGHUP to either re-load the inittab
(or ignore it if no inittab is used). Thus preventing
the re-exec option from being triggerable.
This patch adds a signal handler for SIGQUIT for init that
always causes init to re-exec itsself (along with killing
anything else that might be still running).
Hello, all.
Busybox init does not handle removed inittab entry correctly.
# I'm sorry about my poor english, but you can find
# what I would like to say from patch, isn't it?
even if you apply this path,
when yoy try to change a command line option in inittab,
you have to do following steps.
1. remove old line from initrd
2. send HUP signal to init
3. kill old proces which is invoked from init.
4. append new line to inittab
5. send HUP signal to init, again
patch is against current CVS + last patch witch I send it last.
"kill -HUP 1" reloads inittab, and when I append one line to inittab
and send HUP signal two times, It will starts 2 process.
patch against current CVS is attached.
Hi!
I've created a patch to busybox' build system to allow building it in
separate tree in a manner similar to kbuild from kernel version 2.6.
That is, one runs command like
'make O=/build/some/where/for/specific/target/and/options'
and everything is built in this exact directory, provided that it exists.
I understand that applyingc such invasive changes during 'release
candidates' stage of development is at best unwise. So, i'm currently
asking for comments about this patch, starting from whether such thing
is needed at all to whether it coded properly.
'make check' should work now, and one make creates Makefile in build
directory, so one can run 'make' in build directory after that.
One possible caveat is that if we build in some directory other than
source one, the source directory should be 'distclean'ed first.
egor
