Re: [PATCH] selinux-testsuite: update to work on Debian

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

 



On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:02 AM William Roberts
<bill.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:49 AM Russell Coker <russell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, 7 May 2020 6:35:11 PM AEST Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > > > If people are using preseed installations (kickstart equivalent), I
> > > > think that enabling SELinux in the installer shouldn't be too difficult
> > > > (installing the needed packages, modifying the files and relabeling with
> > > > fixfiles). It's obviously not user friendly, but the question is what's
> > > > the target here.
> > >
> > > If we want to do that properly then I guess we want SE Linux enabled in the
> > > kernel that the installer uses and then have the policy installed early in the
> > > installation so the files can have the correct labels from the start instead of
> > > having a relabel process afterwards.
> >
> > That would be good but might be overreach for Debian since SELinux is
> > not the default there.  It isn't strictly necessary; ever since we
> > went to using extended attributes for file labels, you can set them on
> > a non-SELinux-enabled kernel, so the installer can always set them
> > even if its kernel doesn't enable SELinux.  Optimally they would be
> > set by the package manager based on file_contexts; that is what rpm
> > does in Fedora/RHEL.  Or you can always run setfiles after package
> > installation but before rebooting into the SELinux-enabled kernel.
> > You don't need to defer labeling until you have SELinux enabled.
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:54 AM Stephen Smalley
> <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I found this:
>   - https://man.sr.ht/builds.sr.ht/compatibility.md
>
> It seems to have Fedora-30,31 and rawhide.
> It seems to be free as well (for now)
> I would be a little leary using it, seems new, its only in alpha,
> and looks like it could disappear at any moment.
>
> The travis ubuntu to fedora VM might be heavy, but it would at least provide
> us with something stable... for awhile or we look at getting some
> better infrastructure support for running a CI job on.

Fedora's own CI infrastructure seems like a better bet for the near
term wrt testing on Fedora; Petr appears to be already exploring using
it. My goal here though is to improve the level of support outside of
just Fedora and its derivatives.



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

  Powered by Linux