From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from jazzhorn.ncsc.mil (mummy.ncsc.mil [144.51.88.129]) by tycho.ncsc.mil (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j5H3LkgA006208 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (jazzhorn.ncsc.mil [144.51.5.9]) by jazzhorn.ncsc.mil (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j5H3CXI8005917 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:12:33 GMT Message-ID: <42B24006.2020706@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:14:14 -0400 From: Daniel J Walsh MIME-Version: 1.0 To: russell@coker.com.au CC: ivg2@cornell.edu, SE-Linux Subject: Re: mail_client_macros.te References: <200506170827.59180.russell@coker.com.au> <1118963954.19768.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200506171132.07632.russell@coker.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200506171132.07632.russell@coker.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Russell Coker wrote: >On Friday 17 June 2005 09:19, Ivan Gyurdiev wrote: > > >>On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 08:27 +1000, Russell Coker wrote: >> >> >>>The attached patch is needed to compile a policy without innd.te. >>> >>> >>I don't see why the innd port is dependent on the innd policy. >> >> > >As long as the type is defined in innd.te it is. The policy won't compile >without innd.te included. > >The other option is to move the type to types/network.te. > >Do you think we should change the policy to move all port type definitions to >types/network.te and have all ports labeled unconditionally? > > > Now that we are using named_connect, yes. The port needs to be defined so both the client and server app can connect to it. Dan -- -- 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.