[refpolicy] Contribute blueman dbus mechanism policy from Fedora

[refpolicy] Contribute blueman dbus mechanism policy from Fedora

[Daniel J Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Policy from Fedora for blueman dbus mechanism.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk8HLOcACgkQrlYvE4MpobOUGgCeIfeaQOpu2HvjfhxpnTlnGe4f
wWMAn38ewOOqJHlK+++UuMgND5XEfUNw
=X6qZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: blueman.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1978 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://oss.tresys.com/pipermail/refpolicy/attachments/20120106/d0a6f82f/attachment-0001.bin 

[refpolicy] Contribute blueman dbus mechanism policy from Fedora

[Sven Vermeulen]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 12:18:31PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> Policy from Fedora for blueman dbus mechanism.
[...]
> +########################################
> +#
> +# Declarations
> +#
> +
> +type blueman_t;
> +type blueman_exec_t;
> +dbus_system_domain(blueman_t, blueman_exec_t)

Personally I'd put the dbus_system_domain() through an optional_policy() as
we (Gentoo) don't have dbus as part of base. But I can imagine that systemd
using distributions probably do have dbus as part of base ;-)

Looks okay.

Acked-by: Sven Vermeulen <sven.vermeulen@siphos.be>

[refpolicy] Contribute blueman dbus mechanism policy from Fedora

[Daniel J Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/09/2012 03:06 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 12:18:31PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> Policy from Fedora for blueman dbus mechanism.
> [...]
>> +######################################## +# +# Declarations +# 
>> + +type blueman_t; +type blueman_exec_t; 
>> +dbus_system_domain(blueman_t, blueman_exec_t)
> 
> Personally I'd put the dbus_system_domain() through an
> optional_policy() as we (Gentoo) don't have dbus as part of base.
> But I can imagine that systemd using distributions probably do have
> dbus as part of base ;-)
> 
> Looks okay.
> 
Since this is a dbus service, that really would not make much sense, I
would guess distributions that don't support dbus services would not
include these policies.
> Acked-by: Sven Vermeulen <sven.vermeulen@siphos.be>
> 
> _______________________________________________ refpolicy mailing
> list refpolicy at oss.tresys.com 
> http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk8LTIAACgkQrlYvE4MpobMrdwCeKDLnCkBrdE+EPqx4dfvIs17B
HDcAoI/jmi/kqVI9bnjuLij+hsakToHs
=rYcM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[refpolicy] Contribute blueman dbus mechanism policy from Fedora

[Sven Vermeulen]

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 03:22:24PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> > Personally I'd put the dbus_system_domain() through an
> > optional_policy() as we (Gentoo) don't have dbus as part of base.
> > But I can imagine that systemd using distributions probably do have
> > dbus as part of base ;-)
> > 
> > Looks okay.
> > 
> 
> Since this is a dbus service, that really would not make much sense, I
> would guess distributions that don't support dbus services would not
> include these policies.

Well, we support dbus, but it's not mandatory. But I agree that it is
unlikely someone installs this policy and not the dbus one (which is
probably then best done through the package managers' dependency features).

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen