On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Luis Ressel <aranea@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:43:38 -0400 >> Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Considering where we are at with respect to the merge window, let's >>> shelve this for now and I'll merge it after the next merge window >>> closes. In all likelihood I'll be sending selinux/next up to James >>> later this week and I'd like this to sit in linux-next for longer than >>> a few days. >> >> That means the change will land in 4.14 at the earliest, right? (Just >> out of curiosity.) > > That's correct. We are currently working towards a v4.12 release in > Linus' tree, the upcoming merge window will be for v4.13, and things > merged into selinux/next after that merge window will be for v4.14. > >> By the way, refpolicy only grants "socket" permissions to a handful of >> domains, all of which also have the corresponding "unix_dgram_socket" >> permissions. The fedora policy does the same (according to Stephen); >> this only leaves custom policies to be potentially affected by this >> change. > > While custom policies are definitely in the minority, we still need to > do out best not to break them without warning. > >> Given that the SOCK_RAW->SOCK_DGRAM translation is obscure enough not to >> be documented anywhere outside the kernel sources, I doubt there are >> many users of it, anyway. > > You very well may be right, I just felt that such a change requires > more than a week in the selinux/next tree. > > Thank you for your patch, it's in the queue and I'll be merging it > into the selinux/next branch in a few weeks. With all of the SELinux things for v4.13 upstream, I went ahead and merged this patch into selinux/next. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
