Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] libsepol: implement POLICYDB_VERSION_COMP_FTRANS

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

 



On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:25 AM Stephen Smalley
<stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:29 AM James Carter <jwcart2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:49 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 9:39 PM James Carter <jwcart2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:30 PM James Carter <jwcart2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:46 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Implement a new, more space-efficient form of storing filename
> > > > > > transitions in the binary policy. The internal structures have already
> > > > > > been converted to this new representation; this patch just implements
> > > > > > reading/writing an equivalent representation from/to the binary policy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This new format reduces the size of Fedora policy from 7.6 MB to only
> > > > > > 3.3 MB (with policy optimization enabled in both cases). With the
> > > > > > unconfined module disabled, the size is reduced from 3.3 MB to 2.4 MB.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Acked-by: James Carter <jwcart2@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, it has been a while.
> > >
> > > No problem. I would've merged it myself, I just wasn't sure if we
> > > shouldn't try to do something about the setools issue somehow... But I
> > > really don't feel like touching that code, so if the consensus is that
> > > this is worth the breakage then I'm fine with it :)
> > >
> >
> > I thought the consensus was to apply this now, but it would be nice to
> > not break setools, so I am going to hold off merging for day or two
> > and take a look at how much work it would be to export what setools
> > needs.
>
> There was an earlier discussion about whether we ought to make another
> selinux userspace release soon.
> If so, we should defer applying this change until after that release
> to avoid breaking setools with no fix
> in sight for it.

I agree. That discussion was what got me really thinking about what to
do about setools.

Jim



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

  Powered by Linux