[redhat-lspp] Re: Networking policy patch

[Christopher J. PeBenito]

On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 11:13 -0400, Joshua Brindle wrote:
> Venkat Yekkirala wrote:
> > Actually, the above only applies to the compat_net case
> > and there unlabeled_t is just fine.
> >
> >   
> why isn't compat_net using the same default sid for associations?
> > So, there are different MLS constraints (and policy) for
> > the compat_net case as opposed to the new secmark controls.
> >
> >   
> there shouldn't be, compat_net and secmark use different object classes 
> (except association) and the behaviors should not conflict
> > I guess you are planning to have one policy for compat_net
> > and another for secmark?
> >
> >   
> I'll let Chris comment here but I don't think that is ideal.

Agreed, it would not be ideal.  The behaviors shouldn't conflict, so a
unified policy should be doable.

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
(410) 290-1411 x150