[refpolicy] are we going to have unit file types?

[pebenito@ieee.org (Chris PeBenito)]

On 08/02/16 08:16, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:35:56 AM Jason Zaman wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:40:41PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
>>> Below is a patch that's been in my Debian tree for some time, I didn't
>>> write it I took it from rawhide some years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this the way we are going to do things?  If so I can tidy it up and
>>> submit it.  If not I'll delete it and make the Debian policy work without
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that I am not suggesting this patch for inclusion at the
>>> moment.  I'm just offering it for discussion.
>>
>> We have unit files in refpol yeah, they are different from the stuff in
>> redhat tho i think.
>>
>> A whole bunch like this for example:
>> mandb.te:type mandb_unit_t;
>> mandb.te:init_unit_file(mandb_unit_t)
>> mandb.fc:/usr/lib/systemd/system/[^/]*man-db.*  --      gen_context(system_
>> u:object_r:mandb_unit_t,s0)
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
>
> Is the plan that every daemon domain will get a _unit_t type?  I've revised

There weren't any specific plans to ensure all daemons have a unit, but 
I'm open to that.


> the patch in my tree to use the same naming convention as is now used upstream
> and removed duplicate policy.
>
> The attached patch is what I'm working with now, it has init_unit_file()
> entries for many policy modules that lack it in the 2.20151208 refpolicy
> release.  I haven't yet tried applying this to the latest Git policy and aside
> from that it's not ready for upstream inclusion.  This is just to share what
> I'm working on and to take comments about where I should go with this.

Seems to be the right direction, to me.


-- 
Chris PeBenito