[refpolicy] I think we are declaring ports incorrectly.

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

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

On 10/04/2011 09:52 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On 09/30/11 14:47, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> Currently every network port on the system gets declared in 
>> network_port interface and this calls into declare_ports, which
>> then recusively calls itself for every port defined in the
>> network_ports line.  I think we need to split this up so we only
>> add one attribute to the type, and then declare the portcon.
>> 
>> Currently we can end up with one port like http_port_t with
>> multiple attributes.
>> 
>> # seinfo  -thttp_port_t -x | grep port http_port_t port_type 
>> reserved_port_type unreserved_port_type defined_port_type
>> 
>> 
>> network_port(http, tcp,80,s0, tcp,443,s0, tcp,488,s0,
>> tcp,8008,s0, tcp,8009,s0, tcp,8443,s0) #8443 is mod_nss default
>> port
>> 
>> 
>> This happens because we call
>> 
>> declare_ports(http_port_t, tcp,80,s0) -> reserved_port_type 
>> declare_ports(http_port_t, tcp,443,s0) -> reserved_port_type 
>> declare_ports(http_port_t, tcp,488,s0) -> reserved_port_type; 
>> declare_ports(http_port_t, tcp,80087,s0) ->
>> unreserved_port_type;
>> 
>> I think it would be safer and more secure to just add the
>> attribute to the lowest port definition.  By splitting these into
>> three definitions.
> [...]
>> What do you think?
> 
> I'm fine with this, but there is a different problem, which is we
> lose some rpc_port_types.  I've got a working implementation which
> still appropriately adds rpc_port_type, and chooses
> reserved_port_type over unreserved_port_type if the type has ports
> above and below 1024.  How does that sound?
> 
Sounds good, on list.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk6LIuEACgkQrlYvE4MpobMAagCgxaf2ndcXk21keatvKnw9orC0
MJoAni0EC9EwNVh8R42tJLTUAh+wIaVN
=ItOl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----