SELinux Module Packaging in FC5

[Paul Howarth]

Joshua Brindle wrote:
>> From: Paul Howarth [mailto:paul at city-fan.org] 
>>
>> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 16:12 -0400, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 08:03 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 13:39 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>>> Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>>>> Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 17:33 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>>>>>> It contains a policy module, but the module only 
>> includes file contexts.
>>>>>>> If this is going to be common, then semodule_package and 
>>>>>>> libsemanage need to allow for policy packages that 
>> have no policy module.
>>> [cut]
>>>> - Cleanly supporting policy packages that do not include a binary 
>>>> policy module in the tools (e.g. semodule_package) and 
>> libraries (e.g.
>>>> libsemanage, libsepol), so that they can be used to ship 
>> just file 
>>>> contexts or other components.  I don't know of any work 
>> in progress 
>>>> yet on that issue, so it may make sense to bugzilla it, 
>> although it 
>>>> is really an upstream issue, and there isn't presently an 
>> upstream 
>>>> bugzilla for selinux (just the mailing list).
>>> I was looking at what it would take to support a package without a 
>>> module.  Without the binary policy, there is one problem of 
>> where the 
>>> module name and version will come from.  We could either 
>> add this to 
>>> the package itself (which would require a policy package format 
>>> change), or add a section to the package for module name 
>> and version 
>>> (which seems like a hack to me).
>> What I'm suggesting isn't a policy package with just file 
>> contexts, it's one with no allow/dontaudit rules in the 
>> policy, like this:
>>
>> ::::::::::::::
>> contagged.if
>> ::::::::::::::
>> # contagged.if
>> #
>> # This module has no interfaces
>> ::::::::::::::
>> contagged.fc
>> ::::::::::::::
>> /var/cache/contagged(/.*)?
>> gen_context(system_u:object_r:httpd_cache_t,s0)
>> ::::::::::::::
>> contagged.te
>> ::::::::::::::
>> # It's currently only necessary to set file contexts for the 
>> cache directory # in this policy, but doing it in a module is 
>> easier from a package maintenance # point of view than using 
>> semanage and chcon in scriptlets
>>
>> policy_module(contagged, 0.3)
>>
>> ########################################
>> #
>> # Declarations
>> #
>>
>> require {
>>         type httpd_cache_t;
>> };
>>
>>
>> ########################################
>> #
>> # Local policy
>> #
>>
>> # (none needed)
>>
>>> More importantly, I believe a package without a module does 
>> not make 
>>> sense because the types and users used in the file contexts should 
>>> either be declared or required by the module in the package.  
>>> Otherwise the transaction fails late when the file contexts are 
>>> validated, rather than early during linking.
>> I agree. It would make sense for compilation/linking of the 
>> module above to fail if the "require" wasn't present. 
>> Currently that doesn't happen.
>>
>> Paul.
>>
> 
> Try putting a line with just ; where the rules would go and see if that
> compiles.

What I'm saying is that the module compiles just fine without the 
"require" section, and I think it might be better if it didn't (or at 
least emitted a warning) since the .fc part references httpd_cache_t.

Paul.