[refpolicy] Changing build.conf defaults?

[refpolicy] Changing build.conf defaults?

[Justin P. Mattock]

On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:25 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:00 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I was wondering whether it would make sense to change the refpolicy
> > build.conf defaults to more closely reflect the actual settings in use
> > in modern distributions.  In particular, I was thinking that we are long
> > past the point where it makes sense to make MONOLITHIC=n the default
> > given that:
> > - all modern distros with SELinux use modular/managed policy, and
> > - semodule, semanage, and even setsebool -P will only work if using
> > modular/managed policy these days.
> > 
> > Changing the default would eliminate at least one case of common user
> > error when building from upstream refpolicy on a modern distribution.
> > 
> > Any objections to changing that default upstream?
> 
> I don't.  But I'll wait for a while before changing it to see if anyone
> objects.
> 


no objections here.
building a binary policy is easier
than monolithic(especially in a distro environment).
i.g. no need for the source to add user/login
just semanage.

Justin P. Mattock

[refpolicy] Changing build.conf defaults?

[Stephen Smalley]

Hi,

I was wondering whether it would make sense to change the refpolicy
build.conf defaults to more closely reflect the actual settings in use
in modern distributions.  In particular, I was thinking that we are long
past the point where it makes sense to make MONOLITHIC=n the default
given that:
- all modern distros with SELinux use modular/managed policy, and
- semodule, semanage, and even setsebool -P will only work if using
modular/managed policy these days.

Changing the default would eliminate at least one case of common user
error when building from upstream refpolicy on a modern distribution.

Any objections to changing that default upstream?

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency

[refpolicy] Changing build.conf defaults?

[Christopher J. PeBenito]

On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:00 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was wondering whether it would make sense to change the refpolicy
> build.conf defaults to more closely reflect the actual settings in use
> in modern distributions.  In particular, I was thinking that we are long
> past the point where it makes sense to make MONOLITHIC=n the default
> given that:
> - all modern distros with SELinux use modular/managed policy, and
> - semodule, semanage, and even setsebool -P will only work if using
> modular/managed policy these days.
> 
> Changing the default would eliminate at least one case of common user
> error when building from upstream refpolicy on a modern distribution.
> 
> Any objections to changing that default upstream?

I don't.  But I'll wait for a while before changing it to see if anyone
objects.

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
(410) 290-1411 x150

[refpolicy] Changing build.conf defaults?

[Christopher J. PeBenito]

On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 02:34 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:25 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:00 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > I was wondering whether it would make sense to change the refpolicy
> > > build.conf defaults to more closely reflect the actual settings in use
> > > in modern distributions.  In particular, I was thinking that we are long
> > > past the point where it makes sense to make MONOLITHIC=n the default
> > > given that:
> > > - all modern distros with SELinux use modular/managed policy, and
> > > - semodule, semanage, and even setsebool -P will only work if using
> > > modular/managed policy these days.
> > > 
> > > Changing the default would eliminate at least one case of common user
> > > error when building from upstream refpolicy on a modern distribution.
> > > 
> > > Any objections to changing that default upstream?
> > 
> > I don't.  But I'll wait for a while before changing it to see if anyone
> > objects.
> 
> no objections here.
> building a binary policy is easier
> than monolithic(especially in a distro environment).
> i.g. no need for the source to add user/login
> just semanage.

One thing that I had always hoped was that semanage_expand would be able
to output all of the necessary files, so that a monolithic build in
refpolicy would just be a superset of modular build.  In other words, a
monolithic refpolicy build would build a modular policy then link and
expand the modules.  Then a lot of the makefile complexity could be
dropped.  However, semodule_expand doesn't output file_contexts, at a
minimum.  

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
(410) 290-1411 x150

[refpolicy] Changing build.conf defaults?

[Justin P. mattock]

On 02/19/2010 10:43 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 02:34 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:25 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:00 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>> I was wondering whether it would make sense to change the refpolicy
>>>> build.conf defaults to more closely reflect the actual settings in use
>>>> in modern distributions.  In particular, I was thinking that we are long
>>>> past the point where it makes sense to make MONOLITHIC=n the default
>>>> given that:
>>>> - all modern distros with SELinux use modular/managed policy, and
>>>> - semodule, semanage, and even setsebool -P will only work if using
>>>> modular/managed policy these days.
>>>>
>>>> Changing the default would eliminate at least one case of common user
>>>> error when building from upstream refpolicy on a modern distribution.
>>>>
>>>> Any objections to changing that default upstream?
>>>
>>> I don't.  But I'll wait for a while before changing it to see if anyone
>>> objects.
>>
>> no objections here.
>> building a binary policy is easier
>> than monolithic(especially in a distro environment).
>> i.g. no need for the source to add user/login
>> just semanage.
>
> One thing that I had always hoped was that semanage_expand would be able
> to output all of the necessary files, so that a monolithic build in
> refpolicy would just be a superset of modular build.  In other words, a
> monolithic refpolicy build would build a modular policy then link and
> expand the modules.  Then a lot of the makefile complexity could be
> dropped.  However, semodule_expand doesn't output file_contexts, at a
> minimum.
>


been using monolithic for a while, and just sat down
and got the whole binary build up and running
(still a bit hazzy with the user/login).

but in regards to what(hopefully I'm seeing this)your saying
is if loading a monolithic have semanage have the ability to
example: /usr/sbin/semanage -DB to a monolithic and/or adjust user/login.
just like binary without the need for the source.
(well need for the source to do the initial install)

if so.. that would be nice, i.g. with the suse thing
they have monolithic(if above was possible)I would not have had to
download any source to add login/user etc... just make the changes there 
on the spot like binary.

Justin P. Mattock

[refpolicy] Changing build.conf defaults?

[Christopher J. PeBenito]

On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 10:54 -0800, Justin P. mattock wrote:
> On 02/19/2010 10:43 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 02:34 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:25 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:00 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> >>>> I was wondering whether it would make sense to change the refpolicy
> >>>> build.conf defaults to more closely reflect the actual settings in use
> >>>> in modern distributions.  In particular, I was thinking that we are long
> >>>> past the point where it makes sense to make MONOLITHIC=n the default
> >>>> given that:
> >>>> - all modern distros with SELinux use modular/managed policy, and
> >>>> - semodule, semanage, and even setsebool -P will only work if using
> >>>> modular/managed policy these days.
> >>>>
> >>>> Changing the default would eliminate at least one case of common user
> >>>> error when building from upstream refpolicy on a modern distribution.
> >>>>
> >>>> Any objections to changing that default upstream?
> >>>
> >>> I don't.  But I'll wait for a while before changing it to see if anyone
> >>> objects.
> >>
> >> no objections here.
> >> building a binary policy is easier
> >> than monolithic(especially in a distro environment).
> >> i.g. no need for the source to add user/login
> >> just semanage.
> >
> > One thing that I had always hoped was that semanage_expand would be able
> > to output all of the necessary files, so that a monolithic build in
> > refpolicy would just be a superset of modular build.  In other words, a
> > monolithic refpolicy build would build a modular policy then link and
> > expand the modules.  Then a lot of the makefile complexity could be
> > dropped.  However, semodule_expand doesn't output file_contexts, at a
> > minimum.
> >
> 
> 
> been using monolithic for a while, and just sat down
> and got the whole binary build up and running
> (still a bit hazzy with the user/login).
> 
> but in regards to what(hopefully I'm seeing this)your saying
> is if loading a monolithic have semanage have the ability to
> example: /usr/sbin/semanage -DB to a monolithic and/or adjust user/login.
> just like binary without the need for the source.
> (well need for the source to do the initial install)
> 
> if so.. that would be nice, i.g. with the suse thing
> they have monolithic(if above was possible)I would not have had to
> download any source to add login/user etc... just make the changes there 
> on the spot like binary.

No, I'm just speaking of the build environment, not runtime.  I should
have responded to my previous email rather than to yours.

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
(410) 290-1411 x150

[refpolicy] Changing build.conf defaults?

[Justin P. mattock]

On 02/19/2010 11:01 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 10:54 -0800, Justin P. mattock wrote:
>> On 02/19/2010 10:43 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 02:34 -0800, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:25 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:00 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>>>> I was wondering whether it would make sense to change the refpolicy
>>>>>> build.conf defaults to more closely reflect the actual settings in use
>>>>>> in modern distributions.  In particular, I was thinking that we are long
>>>>>> past the point where it makes sense to make MONOLITHIC=n the default
>>>>>> given that:
>>>>>> - all modern distros with SELinux use modular/managed policy, and
>>>>>> - semodule, semanage, and even setsebool -P will only work if using
>>>>>> modular/managed policy these days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changing the default would eliminate at least one case of common user
>>>>>> error when building from upstream refpolicy on a modern distribution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any objections to changing that default upstream?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't.  But I'll wait for a while before changing it to see if anyone
>>>>> objects.
>>>>
>>>> no objections here.
>>>> building a binary policy is easier
>>>> than monolithic(especially in a distro environment).
>>>> i.g. no need for the source to add user/login
>>>> just semanage.
>>>
>>> One thing that I had always hoped was that semanage_expand would be able
>>> to output all of the necessary files, so that a monolithic build in
>>> refpolicy would just be a superset of modular build.  In other words, a
>>> monolithic refpolicy build would build a modular policy then link and
>>> expand the modules.  Then a lot of the makefile complexity could be
>>> dropped.  However, semodule_expand doesn't output file_contexts, at a
>>> minimum.
>>>
>>
>>
>> been using monolithic for a while, and just sat down
>> and got the whole binary build up and running
>> (still a bit hazzy with the user/login).
>>
>> but in regards to what(hopefully I'm seeing this)your saying
>> is if loading a monolithic have semanage have the ability to
>> example: /usr/sbin/semanage -DB to a monolithic and/or adjust user/login.
>> just like binary without the need for the source.
>> (well need for the source to do the initial install)
>>
>> if so.. that would be nice, i.g. with the suse thing
>> they have monolithic(if above was possible)I would not have had to
>> download any source to add login/user etc... just make the changes there
>> on the spot like binary.
>
> No, I'm just speaking of the build environment, not runtime.  I should
> have responded to my previous email rather than to yours.
>


ahh..
well in any case binary over here seems
more fitting to use nowadays.
easier to get up and running(that is once you
see/figure how semanage and semodule work).

Justin P. Mattock