[refpolicy] services_amavis.patch

[dwalsh@redhat.com (Daniel J Walsh)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Martin Orr wrote:
> On 27/09/08 01:42, Russell Coker wrote:
>> On Thursday 25 September 2008 22:19, Martin Orr <martin@martinorr.name> wrote:
>>>> The CentOS servers that I run have Amavis and ClamAV running unconfined
>>>> because getting the policy to work was too difficult (the two daemons
>>>> interact with each other a lot, trying to keep them separate is a lost
>>>> cause).
>>> How do they interact with each other beyond communicating by a socket and
>>> clamd reading amavis spool files?
>> They can communicate by a socket or by running a program.
> 
> Doesn't seem like interacting a lot to me.
> 
> But I've thought a bit more about why I dislike merging the amavis and
> clamav domains, and my primary concern is that it is confusing to have
> amavisd running as clamav_t.  If I saw a denial with
> comm="amavisd" scontext=system_u:system_r:clamav_t:s0
> then I would assume that there was a missing transition somewhere.
> 
> For similar reasons I dislike the fact that wpa_supplicant runs as
> NetworkManager_t, and the MTA policy is full of confusingly named types and
> attributes, but that's no reason to introduce another one.
> 
> So while I still don't see the value of merging amavis_t and clamav_t when
> separate policy has already been written, I would be a lot happier if the
> merged domain were not called clamav_t.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
mailscanner_t  perhaps?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjjbbcACgkQrlYvE4MpobPvkgCfX+KEfAuZXhgzD9aRozZgyuWR
9hkAn0rSeI+6xIzyIbNN58EvkXifDZel
=mIhq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----