Re: policy package names for Debian

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 10:50 -0400, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 09:57 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > Neglecting the above, I still disagree with dropping a TE-only
> > > configuration.  While you can arrive at the same configuration by having
> > > one category and one sensitivity and/or dropping the MLS constraints,
> > > you still get MLS bits leaking through, eg. in semanage.
> > 
> > That's the point - the presence/absence of a context field is visible to
> > users and applications no matter how much we try to encapsulate the
> > contexts, and having the two different configurations makes maintenance
> > and user experience more difficult/confusing.
> 
> I think the confusion is worse for the TE-only case (emulated by no mls
> constraints or only one category/sensitivity).  For example, if you
> short circuit the level translation to "", then people get confused when
> their setexecon() fails because they haven't put :s0 at the end of the
> context, but none of their ps -AZ processes have it.  Thats
> significantly more obtuse than people thinking "Fedora has that MCS
> stuff, and Ubuntu doesn't."  There is always configuration/support
> variances between distros.

Ah, that's likely true.  And people do find the difference between MCS
and MLS confusing as it is.

> I'm not convinced many people actually use MCS at all.  Users have a
> hard enough time dealing with TE.  If it wasn't for MCS I don't think
> we'd even be having this discussion.

For me, the value of MCS is getting the MLS support adequately tested
and supported throughout the distribution.  That's about it.

The ideal scenario from a "mainstreaming MAC" perspective would be to
have the real MLS constraints in place by default, and the only
difference between the default setup and a MLS one would be whether one
actually puts anything in any level other than s0.  That would carry
some cost from the constraint evaluation on compute_av calls, but that
should be largely masked by the AVC.  It shouldn't really affect memory
or disk use as long as everything defaults to s0 and no categories.

-- 
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.

[Index of Archives]     [Selinux Refpolicy]     [Linux SGX]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite Camping]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [KDE Users]     [Gnome Users]

  Powered by Linux