From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <434BCC58.7030509@cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:29:44 -0400
From: Ivan Gyurdiev <ivg2@cornell.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
CC: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>,
   Karl MacMillan <kmacmillan@tresys.com>
Subject: Re: [ SEMANAGE ] Replace semanage debugging system
References: <434B62B8.4080309@cornell.edu>	 <1129037671.3308.84.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1129039592.3308.110.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
In-Reply-To: <1129039592.3308.110.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov

Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 09:34 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>   
>> An obvious concern about the new msg_write function is that it requires
>> memory allocation itself.  Thus, on a memory allocation failure in the
>> caller, we might easily end up dropping the out of memory error message
>> due to lack of available memory at this point.
>>     
>
> More generally, I'm not sure why msg_write writes the formatted string
> to a private buffer and passes the new msg type to the callback,
> requiring the callback to call *_get methods, versus just having the
> callback be a stdarg function that takes all of the arguments (plus
> auxiliary data) directly.
>   
Taking all of the arguments directly is bad - does not respond well to 
change, and I've already changed this at least 3 times. However, we 
could take 1) the void* arg, 2) the message structure (auxilary data) 2) 
the fmt, and 3) the variadic list..and I think that would be flexible 
enough. I changed it, because I thought this would be a simpler, and 
more intuitive interface, but I can change it back..

> Other comments:
>
> diff -Naur --exclude CVS --exclude ChangeLog --exclude VERSION --exclude libselinux --exclude policy_components.c old/libsemanage/src/direct_api.c exp/libsemanage/src/direct_api.c
> --- old/libsemanage/src/direct_api.c	2005-10-07 18:37:59.000000000 -0400
> +++ exp/libsemanage/src/direct_api.c	2005-10-11 02:34:29.000000000 -0400
> @@ -268,11 +268,23 @@
>  		goto cleanup;
>  	}
>  
> -	/* expand and verify the resulting policy */
> -	if (semanage_expand_sandbox(sh, base) < 0 ||
> -	    semanage_verify_kernel(sh) != 0) {
> +	/* Expand the resulting policy */
> +	if (semanage_expand_sandbox(sh, base) < 0)
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +#if 0
> +	/* Link components into base policy */
> +	if (semanage_base_merge_components(sh, NULL /* FIXME */) < 0)
> +		goto cleanup;
> +
> +	/* Commit changes to components */
> +	if (semanage_commit_components(sh) < 0)
> +		goto cleanup;
> +#endif
> +
> +	/* Verify policy */
> +	if (semanage_verify_kernel(sh) != 0)
>  		goto cleanup;
> -	}
>
> Why wouldn't the above steps occur as part of semanage_expand_sandbox()?
>   
...I suppose it could go there as well..

--
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.