On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 09:37 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 08:26 -0500, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> > Also, note that now I am getting an error when trying to install the
> > myclam.pp module:
> >
> > # semodule -i myclam.pp
> > libsepol.scope_copy_callback: myclam: Duplicate declaration in module:
> > type/attribute clamscan_tmp_t
> > libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbox: Link packages failed
> > semodule: Failed!
> >
> >
> > So I presume that there is an update in the version 1.0.1 of the new
> > clamav module that conflicts with the declarations in our new module?
>
> Yes, clamscan_tmp_t is defined in the clamav module now, so your
> definition can go away. Unlike allow rules, which are just unioned
> together (thus, no harm in duplicates), duplicate type declarations are
> treated as an error.
>
> > The current myclam.te is:
> >
> > # cat myclam.te
> > ####### myclam.te #######
> > policy_module(myclam, 0.1.2)
> >
> > require {
> > type clamscan_t;
> > type procmail_tmp_t;
> > type postfix_local_t;
> > };
> >
> > # temp files
> > type clamscan_tmp_t;
> > files_tmp_file(clamscan_tmp_t)
> >
> > # Allow clamscan to create and use temp files and dirs
> > allow clamscan_t clamscan_tmp_t:dir create_dir_perms;
> > allow clamscan_t clamscan_tmp_t:file create_file_perms;
> > files_type(clamscan_tmp_t)
> > files_tmp_filetrans(clamscan_t, clamscan_tmp_t, { file dir })
> >
> > # Allow clamscan to read and write temp files created by procmail
> > # (needed for clamassassin)
> > allow clamscan_t procmail_tmp_t:file rw_file_perms;
> >
> > # Allow clamscan output to be piped back into the
> > # postfix local delivery process
> > allow clamscan_t postfix_local_t:fd use;
> > allow clamscan_t postfix_local_t:fifo_file write;
Thanks Stephen.
So is it sufficient to simply remove the:
type clamscan_tmp_t;
line and retain the rest of the content or are the other changes that
should be made in light of the new clamav module?
Paul, I presume that you will also want to increment the version number?
Also, as an FYI, this is the second time that I have experienced an RPM
related error with the policies. Paul, you may recall a few weeks ago,
there was a partial install of an update RPM, which was not actually
loaded, but rpm reported both versions being installed. Not sure if this
is unique to my system or if others may be having any issues. I have not
checked Bugzilla for any reports on these.
Marc
--
fedora-selinux-list mailing list
fedora-selinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list
