From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: can not boot with strict policy From: "Christopher J. PeBenito" To: Daniel J Walsh Cc: Stephen Smalley , James Morris , Ken YANG , SELinux List In-Reply-To: <462CF79C.5080804@redhat.com> References: <462CA1F0.2000400@gmail.com> <1177340494.24282.28.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1177350508.24282.58.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <462CF79C.5080804@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:23:37 +0000 Message-Id: <1177417417.8672.25.camel@sgc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:14 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > So the real question, is there much value with the division between > lib_t and shlib_t. > When dealing with strict policy, shared libraries were always getting > mislabeled as lib_t, and causing problems, for little security advantage. In Gentoo I don't see these kinds of problems, and we still have the strict policy as the default option (until recently on desktops) and I don't see this problem; the fc regexes work very well. However, the Gentoo community is far smaller than Fedora/RHEL. > As we remove the differences between strict and targeted, I don't intend > to get rid of lib_t == shlib_t. I had intended to drop the alias, so i guess we need more discussion. :) -- Chris PeBenito Tresys Technology, LLC (410) 290-1411 x150 -- 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.