Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 15:35 -0500, Joshua Brindle wrote:
Stephen Smalley wrote:
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.
And when a user installs a new module via audit2allow they have to know
to select --ignore-stuff-the-modules-say-and-do-something-else-anyway? I
don't like this idea either.
Shrug. Then we'll just go with equivalence only, and the user will have
to remove local modules before upgrade.
Well, Todd just suggested, rather than forcing install (which has
strange semantics anyway since it isn't clear which set of caps would
end up in the kernel policy) we could have an --upgrade-polcaps option
that unions the bitmaps of the modules installed. It isn't pretty but it
requires manual intervention to union them instead of doing so
automatically. This obviously will break local policies that do not
support the cap but need to. The user will have to figure out how to
update those local policies to add the required permissions, this isn't
any different than adding new permission checks to the kernel though.
I'm still concerned about audit2allow's ability to decide what caps to
put in a policy module being generated. I also have concerns about new
policy modules that are being written by hand, the users aren't going to
necessarily know what caps are available and why they should care. I'm
sure SLIDE will be able to take care of that though ;)
--
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.
