From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] checkpolicy: Warn if module name different than
 output filename
To: James Carter <jwcart2@tycho.nsa.gov>, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
References: <1460041566-7173-1-git-send-email-jwcart2@tycho.nsa.gov>
 <1460041566-7173-3-git-send-email-jwcart2@tycho.nsa.gov>
 <57067C93.3040000@redhat.com> <5706B65D.1000906@tycho.nsa.gov>
From: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <5706B8E3.1030407@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:45:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5706B65D.1000906@tycho.nsa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
List-Id: "Security-Enhanced Linux \(SELinux\) mailing list"
 <selinux.tycho.nsa.gov>
List-Post: <mailto:selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>
List-Help: <mailto:selinux-request@tycho.nsa.gov?subject=help>



On 04/07/2016 03:34 PM, James Carter wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 11:28 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/07/2016 11:06 AM, James Carter wrote:
>>> Since CIL treats files as modules and does not have a separate
>>> module statement it can cause confusion when a Refpolicy module
>>> has a name that is different than its base filename because older
>>> SELinux userspaces will refer to the module by its module name while
>>> a CIL-based userspace will refer to it by its filename.
>>>
>>> Because of this, provide a warning message when compiling a module and
>>> the output filename is different than the module name.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: James Carter <jwcart2@tycho.nsa.gov>
>>> ---
>>>   checkpolicy/checkmodule.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/checkpolicy/checkmodule.c b/checkpolicy/checkmodule.c
>>> index 5957d29..d807620 100644
>>> --- a/checkpolicy/checkmodule.c
>>> +++ b/checkpolicy/checkmodule.c
>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>>>   #include <stdio.h>
>>>   #include <errno.h>
>>>   #include <sys/mman.h>
>>> +#include <libgen.h>
>>>   #include <sepol/module_to_cil.h>
>>>   #include <sepol/policydb/policydb.h>
>>> @@ -258,6 +259,20 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>           }
>>>       }
>>> +    if (policy_type != POLICY_BASE && outfile) {
>>> +        char *mod_name = modpolicydb.name;
>>> +        char *out_path = strdup(outfile);
>>> +        char *out_name = basename(out_path);
>>> +        char *separator = strrchr(out_name, '.');
>>> +        if (separator) {
>>> +            *separator = '\0';
>>> +        }
>>> +        if (strcmp(mod_name, out_name) != 0) {
>>> +            fprintf(stderr,    "Warning: SELinux userspace will 
>>> refer to the
>>> module from %s as %s rather than as %s\n", file, out_name, mod_name);
>>> +        }
>>> +        free(out_path);
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>>       if (modpolicydb.policy_type == POLICY_BASE && !cil) {
>>>           /* Verify that we can successfully expand the base module. */
>>>           policydb_t kernpolicydb;
>> Why not fail rather then warn.  Don't let me do stupid things...
>
> I am willing to do that for checkmodule if that is what everyone 
> wants. I wouldn't want to do it for pp since that could cause problems 
> for current systems. Just as a note, Fedora's passenger module has 
> "passanger" as the policy name in its policy_module statement.
>
> Jim
>
>
And if it blew up someone would have fixed it.  :^)