two new questions (sort of)

[Clarkson, Mike R (US SSA)]

I'll file a bug.

Here is what I did:

# semodule -b /usr/share/selinux/mls/enableaudit.pp
libsepol.scope_copy_callback: acct: Duplicate declaration in module:
type/attribute acct_t
libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbox: Link packages failed
semodule:  Failed!
# semodule -r acct
# semodule -b /usr/share/selinux/mls/enableaudit.pp
libsepol.scope_copy_callback: aide: Duplicate declaration in module:
type/attribute aide_t
libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbox: Link packages failed
semodule:  Failed!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Paris [mailto:eparis at redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:34 PM
> To: Clarkson, Mike R (US SSA)
> Cc: Stephen Smalley; Daniel J Walsh; fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com
> Subject: RE: two new questions (sort of)
> 
> enableaudit.pp is a base module, are you using -i or -b to load it?
If
> you can't just semodule -b enableaudit.pp file a bug explaining what
you
> did and what went wrong  (dan loves bugs, i heard him say it)
> 
> -Eric
> 
> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 17:11 -0800, Clarkson, Mike R (US SSA) wrote:
> > Thanks. I wasn't aware that all dontaudit rules could be disabled.
> >
> > It looks like RHEL5.1 doesn't have the -D option available for
semodule,
> > so I'm attempting to use the older method of loading enableaudit.pp.
I
> > keep getting duplicate declaration errors. It appears that to load
> > enableaudit.pp, I first need to remove nearly all the non-base
modules.
> > Is there an easier method to do that other than either of the
following?
> > 	-using "semodule -i" and listing all the modules
> > 	-changing each module to off in the modules.conf file
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen Smalley [mailto:sds at tycho.nsa.gov]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:30 PM
> > > To: Clarkson, Mike R (US SSA)
> > > Cc: fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com; Daniel J Walsh
> > > Subject: Re: two new questions (sort of)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:53 -0800, Clarkson, Mike R (US SSA)
wrote:
> > > > I've been testing dynamic transitions with a simple test program
> > that
> > > > uses setcon to change from one mls level to another, as well as
one
> > > > domain to another. I wrote a policy for this test program and
> > provided
> > > > all the rules necessary to remove all of the avc denials from
the
> > audit
> > > > log. When I run my program in permissive mode, it works as
expected
> > > > without adding any avc denial messages to the audit log. But
when I
> > > > switch to enforcing mode, the setcon call fails. Maybe there are
> > some
> > > > dontaudit statements that come with the policy causing this. I'm
> > using
> > > > RHEL5.1 with the mls policy.Any ideas as to what may be causing
> > this?
> > >
> > > Try loading policy without any dontaudit rules and try again.
> > > With modern userland, you can just do:
> > > 	semodule -DB
> > > to remove all dontaudits from policy and load it.  semodule -B
later
> > > will revert the change.
> > >
> > > The old way before semodule -DB was to install enableaudit.pp (a
base
> > > module with dontaudits stripped at build time)
> > > from /usr/share/selinux/$SELINUXTYPE.  But that only affects the
base
> > > module, not any other modules.  So if this is for a policy module
> > you've
> > > created, you should really look there to see what dontaudits are
in
> > the
> > > postprocessed file under the tmp directory.
> > >
> > > > Since the subject of dynamic transitions seems to raise much
angst
> > and
> > > > gnashing of teeth, I thought I'd ask if there is a better way to
> > solve
> > > > the problem that we have? I'm investigating dynamic transitions
for
> > the
> > > > following purpose. We have services that we run that take a long
> > time to
> > > > start up, too long to start them up on demand. We want to have a
> > pool of
> > > > them up and running, waiting to be tasked by a server. But we'll
be
> > > > running an MLS system with many compartments and possible
> > combinations
> > > > of compartments so it is not feasible to have services up and
> > running
> > > > for all the compartment combinations. The idea is to have a pool
of
> > > > services initialize at some default level, and then assign them
to
> > the
> > > > correct level/compartment when tasked. Upon completing a task, a
> > service
> > > > would shut down and a new service would be started to replace
it, at
> > the
> > > > default level. Two domains would be used. A service
initialization
> > > > domain, and a service running domain. The service initialization
> > domain
> > > > would have the capability of dynamic transitions. The service
> > running
> > > > domain would not. Therefore, when the service is tasked, it also
> > > > dynamically transitions to the correct level and to the service
> > running
> > > > domain. From that point on it no longer has the capability of
> > further
> > > > dynamic transitions. If there is a better way to solve this
problem,
> > I'd
> > > > like to know.
> > >
> > > exec based transitions are preferable as we can control the
> > inheritance
> > > of state across the transition and the initialization of the
process
> > in
> > > the new context, including binding entry into the context to a
> > specific
> > > executable.  But it does carry an overhead, of course.
Refactoring
> > your
> > > service program may be possible, or maybe not.
> > >
> > > These kinds of questions are likely better suited to selinux list
> > rather
> > > than fedora selinux list, btw.  Not really fedora specific.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stephen Smalley
> > > National Security Agency
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > fedora-selinux-list mailing list
> > fedora-selinux-list at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list