All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Karl MacMillan <kmacmillan@mentalrootkit.com>
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Cc: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>,
	SE Linux <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	Joshua Brindle <method@manicmethod.com>,
	John Dennis <jdennis@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: policycoreutils patches]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:50:37 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1176490237.8230.48.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1176489804.3986.291.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>

On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 14:43 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 11:17 -0400, Karl MacMillan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 10:49 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 10:39 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> > > > Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2007-04-13 at 08:53 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> > > > >   
> > > > >> Moved audit2allow to sbin to match audit2why.
> > > > >>     
> > > > >
> > > > > (one patch per message would be nicer)
> > > > >
> > > > > I actually don't like having so many of the programs in /sbin
> > > > > or /usr/sbin, as they aren't in normal user paths and make it more
> > > > > painful to find the commands.  And moving them can cause user confusion
> > > > > and/or script breakage.  
> > > > >
> > > > >   
> > > > Then for consistency we should move audit2why to the same directory as 
> > > > audit2allow.
> > > 
> > > My real preference would be that the audit2why functionality would be
> > > replicated (and improved) in sepolgen, and audit2allow would directly
> > > use that functionality to identify the cause of the denial as part of
> > > generating policy.  Then audit2allow could directly generate refpolicy
> > > interface calls to e.g. add an attribute to a domain so that it passes
> > > some constraint, or generate a role allow rule.  auditwhy in its current
> > > form is really only to help you; it isn't very useful for end users
> > > (doesn't provide enough information).
> > > 
> > 
> > I would like to see that as well. We have also discussed moving the
> > setroubleshoot plugins into sepolgen to gain broader review and improved
> > maintenance. The current audit2why only provides part of the picture (as
> > you say), we really want to start telling users when they should relabel
> > a file, flib a boolean, or take some action _other_ than allowing the
> > access via allow rules of refpolicy interfaces.
> 
> Yes, although I'm not sure the heuristic/plugin model is the right one.
> Given the right support in libsepol, audit2allow/sepolgen should be able
> to search the conditional avtab for conditional rules that would have
> allowed the access and discover the right boolean directly from policy.
> For file labeling, it might be able to probe what types are accessible
> to the domain in question, and try to propose one.
> 

That's certainly true and I plan to explore those approaches. There are
times, however, when the heuristics might give better explanations. So I
think that we should plan to work on this functionality and import
setroubleshoot plugins as needed. I'll work with John (the
setroubleshoot author) to move over to using sepolgen at the right time.

Karl



--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-04-13 18:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-04-13 12:53 [Fwd: policycoreutils patches] Daniel J Walsh
2007-04-13 14:31 ` Stephen Smalley
2007-04-13 14:39   ` Daniel J Walsh
2007-04-13 14:49     ` Stephen Smalley
2007-04-13 14:52       ` Stephen Smalley
2007-04-13 15:10         ` Daniel J Walsh
2007-04-13 15:18           ` Stephen Smalley
2007-04-13 15:17       ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-13 18:43         ` Stephen Smalley
2007-04-13 18:50           ` Karl MacMillan [this message]
2007-04-13 18:33 ` Karl MacMillan
2007-04-24 14:04 ` Stephen Smalley

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1176490237.8230.48.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=kmacmillan@mentalrootkit.com \
    --cc=dwalsh@redhat.com \
    --cc=jdennis@redhat.com \
    --cc=method@manicmethod.com \
    --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
    --cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.