Re: sepolgen requires unofficial setools patch

["Christopher J. PeBenito" <cpebenito@tresys.com>]

On 05/23/12 11:46, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 05/21/2012 04:58 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>> Hi guys,
> 
>> It looks like the current stable sepolgen release has requirements towards 
>> an unofficial (well, fedora/rhel only) patch on setools. With the current 
>> stable setools, it gives the following error when trying to use
>> audit2allow on a denial that contains write & open:
> 
>> Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/audit2allow-2.7", line
>> 354, in <module> app.main() File "/usr/bin/audit2allow-2.7", line 345, in
>> main self.__output() File "/usr/bin/audit2allow-2.7", line 315, in
>> __output g.add_access(self.__avs) File
>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sepolgen/policygen.py", line 211, in
>> add_access self.__add_allow_rules(raw_allow) File
>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sepolgen/policygen.py", line 179, in
>> __add_allow_rules self.domains = seinfo(ATTRIBUTE,
>> name="domain")[0]["types"] NameError: global name 'seinfo' is not defined
> 
>> The patch that RedHat (and Fedora) provides fixes this in Python 2
>> systems, but doesn't work in Python 3 (because Python 3 has a different
>> setup for Extension-based modules). I have a locally-tested patch on that,
>> but I'm not sure this is a good way to go forward.
> 
>> Perhaps it would be wise to remove the dependency towards the setools 
>> binding and instead include the necessary code in the userspace libraries 
>> themselves? policygen.py doesn't require the entire set of querying that 
>> seinfo provides...
> 
>> The patch that is suggested by RedHat/Fedora doesn't follow the same 
>> structure as the other bindings do (like libqpol/libapol) in setools too.
> 
>> Wkr, Sven Vermeulen
> 
>> -- 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.
> 
> 
> Well I am not sure if anyone has ever used the setools python binaries other
> then the setools/sesearch and seinfo bindings.
> 
> I would suggest we drop the general python bindings or deemphasize them and
> work on improving the seinfo/sesearch bindings.

I don't have a problem with a simpler api, e.g. a single function for rule searching, rather than the multiple calls to set up a query, but the current implementation in Fedora isn't acceptable to upstream setools.  Perhaps what should be done is to add a basic query api to the SELinux userspace upstream, so that you can create all of these tools.  Libqpol in setools tries to do this, but its implementation wouldn't be acceptable upstream.  Then the extra dependency of sepolgen on setools could be broken.

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
www.tresys.com | oss.tresys.com

--
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.