On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 10:28 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:26 -0500, Joe Nall wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > > I did notice however that I could also get it to build w/o > > > changing checkmodule by reversing the order of the interface calls > > > there > > > - not sure if that workaround is usable in the original case that > > > triggered this bug report. > > > > > > Arranging modules in the proper order becomes increasingly difficult > > as module interaction grows. I finally de-optioned the X policy in > > fedora since it is in base so get our additions to compile. Patch > > included for reference. > > > > Making the compiler gracefully deal with options would really be > > appreciated. I could see the issue in the compiler code, but the right > > fix wasn't obvious. > > Does the patch I posted fix your problem? And by fix, I mean not only does it allow you to build the policy but does it yield the expected final kernel policy (i.e. look at the policy.N file via apol and check that you are getting the expected types and rules in the final policy). -- 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.
