From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <47502066.5090106@manicmethod.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:38:30 -0500 From: Joshua Brindle MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Smalley CC: tmiller@tresys.com, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, Paul Moore Subject: Re: PATCH: peersid capability support References: <200711291927.lATJRixF021978@rawhidevm-targeted.columbia.tresys.com> <1196371475.24040.74.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <474F4A43.3050106@manicmethod.com> <1196429668.10720.1.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> In-Reply-To: <1196429668.10720.1.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 Thu, 2007-11-29 at 18:24 -0500, Joshua Brindle wrote: > >> Stephen Smalley wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 14:27 -0500, tmiller@tresys.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> This is a reworking of the peersid capability patch Joshua sent out >>>> a few weeks ago. This version requires added explicit declaration of >>>> capabilities in the policy. >>>> >>>> I've used the same strings that Paul's kernel diff used (there is >>>> currently just a single capability). >>>> >>>> Note that capability declarations are not limited to base.conf / >>>> policy.conf as we would like to eventually get rid of the base vs. module >>>> distinction. >>>> >>>> >>> Taking the union of the capabilities at link time seems worrisome to me. >>> I'd be more inclined to require equivalence or take the intersection. >>> >>> >>> >> I strongly disagree. My vision was to be able to add a capability to the >> policy by inserting a policy module that enables the capability (and has >> associated policy). Making them an intersection or equivalence would >> require one to update every single module just to add a capability (or >> at least update the base if it is considered authoritative, which I was >> also trying to avoid). >> > > Joshua - think about it. Let's say I write a policy module based on the > new peer checks, and my base module was written in terms of the old > network checks. Now I link them together and get a policy that tells > the kernel to use the new peer checks. Voila! My base policy breaks > horrendously. > That is why I said the module being inserted would have the associated policy. I don't believe policyrep is going to have a concept of base so we'd just be delaying the inevitable by restricting it to base now. -- 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.