On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:21 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:31 +0300, AlannY wrote: > > Hi there. > > > > I'm trying to compile refpolicy. I have checkpolicy 2.0.20 and misc > > tools (libselinux policycoreutils). I'm trying to: > > > > make bare > > make conf > > make base.pp > > > > My configuration: > > > > TYPE=mcs > > NAME=refpolicy > > UNK_PERMS=allow > > DIRECT_INITRC=n > > MONOLITHIC=n > > UBAC=n > > MLS_CATS=1024 > > MCS_CATS=1024 > > > > But, the last command failed with the following error: > > > > Creating refpolicy base module base.conf > > cat tmp/pre_te_files.conf tmp/all_attrs_types.conf > > tmp/global_bools.conf tmp/only_te_rules.conf tmp/all_post.conf > base.conf > > Compiling refpolicy base module > > /usr/bin/checkmodule -M -U allow base.conf -o tmp/base.mod > > /usr/bin/checkmodule: loading policy configuration from base.conf > > base.conf:2032:ERROR 'syntax error' at token ':c0.c1023' on line 2032: > > level s0:c0.c1023; > > > > Seems to be, it's a good line (2032), but checkmodule can't eat it. > > > > Where can be the probem? > > Looks like a scanner problem to me. There have been problems with some > versions of flex, e.g. see: > http://marc.info/?t=125613782400001&r=1&w=2 > but no one has ever tracked it down precisely and I've never been able > to reproduce. Modify your checkpolicy Makefile to pass -d to $(LEX) so > that it generates debug output and then capture the stderr of running > checkpolicy on base.conf. Here I get the following output for that > line: > --accepting rule at line 55 (" > level s0:c0.c1023;") > --accepting rule at line 116 ("level") > --accepting rule at line 227 (" ") > --accepting rule at line 219 ("s0") > --accepting rule at line 235 (":") > --accepting rule at line 219 ("c0.c1023") > --accepting rule at line 236 (";") > > Note that the ":" gets treated as a separate token above, as it should, > whereas your checkmodule seems to not be splitting it properly. > > You can look at checkpolicy/policy_scan.l and see if anything strikes > you as problematic, but it looks sane to me. Maybe it is matching on > ipv6_addr instead. On second look, I'm wondering why ipv6_addr has . in > the pattern. Does this help? > > diff --git a/checkpolicy/policy_scan.l b/checkpolicy/policy_scan.l > index 48128a8..b7b8f0a 100644 > --- a/checkpolicy/policy_scan.l > +++ b/checkpolicy/policy_scan.l > @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ PERMISSIVE { return(PERMISSIVE); } > {letter}({alnum}|[_\-])*([\.]?({alnum}|[_\-]))* { return(IDENTIFIER); } > {digit}+|0x{hexval}+ { return(NUMBER); } > {digit}{1,3}(\.{digit}{1,3}){3} { return(IPV4_ADDR); } > -{hexval}{0,4}":"{hexval}{0,4}":"({hexval}|[:.])* { return(IPV6_ADDR); } > +{hexval}{0,4}":"{hexval}{0,4}":"({hexval}|":")* { return(IPV6_ADDR); } > {digit}+(\.({alnum}|[_.])*)? { return(VERSION_IDENTIFIER); } > #line[ ]1[ ]\"[^\n]*\" { set_source_file(yytext+9); } > #line[ ]{digit}+ { source_lineno = atoi(yytext+6)-1; } Hmm...and does the second "." in VERSION_IDENTIFIER need to be quoted or escaped via backslash as well? -- 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.
