Buildroot Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] SELinux Buildroot Additions
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:25:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130827202505.22f5ee46@skate> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF340CA870.4409C997-ON86257BD4.005E13D7-86257BD4.0061A29C@rockwellcollins.com>

Clayton,

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:46:25 -0500, clshotwe at rockwellcollins.com wrote:

> We have a multiple platforms that we will be validating this on 
> including ARM, x86, and PPC. I should be able to start pushing out
> patches for the packages within the week.

Nice!

> As for the defconfig issue, being able to pull down a reference config 
> and some skeleton changes to implement a specific feature would be very 
> nice to have. It may be possible to do QEMU targets for each architecture 
> but I will have to look into that further. 

I agree that having "demo" configurations would be useful. It's just
that it's not the purpose of the defconfigs we have today.

> The single SELinux flag will be more problematic.  There are a lot of 
> package dependencies that will be hard to configure without making the 
> menuconfig very confusing. Also, there is a huge issue with using Busybox 
> and the base SELinux Refpolicy put out by Tresys that cause applications 
> to not run in the correct SELinux context.

For other readers, the SELinux Refpolicy is apparently what is
available at http://oss.tresys.com/projects/refpolicy.

Can you expand on what is the huge issue between Busybox and the
SELinux Refpolicy? The fact that the Refpolicy doesn't include a policy
for Busybox? If so, isn't it possible to contribute a policy that would
be suitable for usage with Busybox? A quick Google search returns
http://code.google.com/p/sebusybox/.

Anyway, using Busybox on the target system is not necessarily mandatory
when using Buildroot, you can also chose to use the coreutils instead,
even though it's true that Busybox is our primary target for the base
of the system.

> For now, the documentation route, in the Buildroot manual, may be the best 
> way to go. I'll just table this for now until I get the patches pushed 
> out.

Right, sounds good!

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

  reply	other threads:[~2013-08-27 18:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-27 16:20 [Buildroot] SELinux Buildroot Additions clshotwe at rockwellcollins.com
2013-08-27 17:04 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2013-08-27 17:46   ` clshotwe at rockwellcollins.com
2013-08-27 18:25     ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2013-08-27 18:56       ` clshotwe at rockwellcollins.com
2013-08-27 20:08         ` Thomas Petazzoni

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130827202505.22f5ee46@skate \
    --to=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
    --cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox