On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 15:16 -0500, Joshua Brindle wrote: > Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 14:30 -0500, Todd Miller wrote: > >> Paul Moore wrote: > >>> The discussion for this appears to have gone quiet (at least I > >>> haven't seen anything else on this list). Where do things currently > >>> stand? > >> At this point I'd be OK with requiring equivalence and throwing an error > >> otherwise. I do think that this will result in usability issues that we > >> will have to address once people start using the caps. However, with > >> only > >> a single cap defined so far it is not really possible to know how these > >> will end up being used. > > > > We could try to come up with a solution at least for allowing clean > > upgrades from F8 (w/o any caps) to F9 (likely w/ peer cap defined) > > without requiring manual user intervention for dealing with local > > modules. > > > > This was my exact objection to using an intersection or equivalence. IMO > it is incompatible to require all modules to be the same and to also > require upgrades to work without manual intervention. > > Do you still think unioning is wrong? Yes, I'm still against (automatic, default) unioning of the capabilities by the linker - that is clearly not a safe default. semodule could possibly override that behavior based on an option though, at which point the %post scriptlet in the policy rpm could use that option if we wanted to force it w/o user intervention. > > There are however plenty of other ways in which a policy upgrade can > > break at present. > > -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
