How best get rid of SELinux?

[Mike McCarty]

Alan M. Evans wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 14:10 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> 
> 
>>So, the only secure line of code is the noop?  :-)
> 
> 
> That's funny. But I might argue that a noop is the least secure
> instruction, because it can typically be easily replaced (with a jmp or
> call, for example) without affecting other code function.

Usually[*], the NOP is the smallest instruction, so it may be used
to nullify other instructions, all of which are made to be multiples
of the size of a NOP. A jump type instruction needs at least
an opcode and an address (even if only relative), so is usually
larger than a NOP. On some machines, some short form of jump
may be just one machine word (a couple of architectures come
to mind, like the Z8000 for instance).

[*] I can't think of a counter example, and it wouldn't make sense
for it to be otherwise.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!