Setting up CVS repository and avoiding Selinux issues?

[Daniel J Walsh]

On 04/29/2009 11:20 AM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
> Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> On 04/28/2009 10:07 PM, Daniel B. Thurman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am trying to get my CVS repository setup. Apparently,
>>> it appears that the repository must be in the root directory,
>>> otherwise I get selinux permission denials.
>>>
>>> What I tried to do initially was to locate the repository
>>> on a NTFS filesystem for which the context is fusefs
>>> which could not be changed, no matter what I tried.
>>> I got selinux permission errors.
>>>
>>> Giving that up, I moved the repository to a ext3 filesystem
>>> located on a separate drive/partition, mounted on /f-App1,
>>> where the repository is located @ /f-App1/Develop/cvs, and did:
>>>
>>> cd /f-App1/Develop/
>>> chown -R cvs:cvs cvs
>>> chcon -R -t cvs_data_t cvs
>>> find cvs -type d -exec chmod 755 {} \;
>>> find cvs -type t -exec chmod 754 {} \;
>>> ln -s /f-App1/Develop/cvs /cvs
>>>
>>> and I got selinux complaining that the files are not /cvs rooted.
>>>
>>> So I did:
>>>
>>> cp -a /f-App1/Develop/cvs /cvs1
>>> rm -f /cvs
>>> ln -s /cvs1 /cvs
>>>
>>> And it worked.
>>>
>>> How can I place my repository in a non-rooted, non-standard
>>> repository location and avoid the selinux complaints?
>>
>> I blogged on your email
>>
>> http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/28027.html
>>
> Thanks a lot Dan! I will see what I can do to resolve
> my CVS issues. Please read my posting in reply to Todd
> Dennison. I was asking myself why the "all or nothing
> proposition", and about using selinux context with more
> flexibility than what we have? I understand that security
> prevails over flexibility but I was wondering if there was
> a way to gain more flexibility and yet still retain security?
>
Well I would argue they are very flexible.  I did give you a couple of 
solutions but there are theoretically multiple others.

And I am always willing to accept other solutions.

svn and git seem to be using http_sys_content_t for their context so I 
guess we could attempt to allow those domains access to cvs_data?
> For example, if multiple context / file was possible, then
> one could theoretically traverse from the top of the tree
> to allow passage to the leaf of the tree? Yes I can imagine
> it is a bit more complexity, but... if security is not compromised,
> then, perhaps it's worth it?
>
I guess maybe we should have had this conversation on the blog.  There 
are many context that most confined services can traverse.  For example 
usr_t, etc_t, var_t

I have added a comment to my blog.
> PS: For some reason or another, I am no longer receiving
> Fedora SeLinux mailing list postings. Is the Fedora SeLinux
> mailing list still active?
>
Yes.  This list is still available.

Last message is 4/28 fron me.  :^)

> Kind regards,
> Dan
>