From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43BA267D.2010905@cornell.edu> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 02:23:41 -0500 From: Ivan Gyurdiev MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Gyurdiev CC: Joshua Brindle , SELinux List , Stephen Smalley , dwalsh@redhat.com Subject: Re: [SEMANAGE][SEPOL] Enable ports References: <43ACADB3.7070509@cornell.edu> <43B97823.3080201@tresys.com> <43B9761A.3070504@cornell.edu> In-Reply-To: <43B9761A.3070504@cornell.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov > . Adding the "limited intelligence" with respect to error checking is > much more difficult in libsemanage, and I've wasted lots of time on > this. It's easier to do in the client. Actually.... not true. It's difficult to add at the key level, but error checks and warnings and things like that will easily go into a verify run on commit (or possibly in sepol). So, now I think I'll focus on: - seuser validation (mls range valid, mls range subset of selinux user, possibly move Unix user check into lib?) - file context validation (context valid, maybe regexp valid?) It should be possible to do those two now, after new additions to libsepol interface. - ports error checking (warn on shadowing, things like that) - also, did you know that if you originally put a file with duplicate records in semanage, it would stay that way, and semanage wouldn't complain (it does no duplicate checking when reading in the file - not sure if that's a problem). Also, there's issues with the API, which I posted about on SELinux-dev@tresys - if API changes are still allowed I'm considering removing the set function, changing the behavior of add, and compare for each record. See "API message still ok" for details. -- 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.