On 05/16/2013 09:33 AM, Steve Lawrence wrote:
Another discussion we would like to have, which may affect the future of SETools/apol, is CIL. Is there still interest in CIL? And if so, have there been any thoughts on using and migrating to CIL? Is more work needed before this can happen? Has anyone put thought into higher level languages that could sit on top of CIL? If there is interest, this may affect the SETools changes, for example, syntactic policy analysis for CIL is likely very different than current policy.
I am still interested in CIL. In fact, I just got CIL to work on a translation of Refpolicy from early 2012. (And by work I mean produce a binary policy equivalent, according to sediff, with the binary produced by the Refpolicy build.) I just started this week on trying it against a recent version of Refpolicy. There are some issues that I need to work through; the biggest being how to handle the optional parameters to filetrans_pattern() and filetrans_add_pattern(). I hope to make both the CIL translation of Refpolicy and my many modifications to CIL available shortly.
I am also interested in resurrecting the earlier policy toolchain work to convert to the use of source modules and allow the use of CIL for policy builds.
-- James Carter <jwcart2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
