On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:14:02PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > I'm think we should go for stabilization --- I'm not sure how since the > arch teams are going to say they really can't test this for us, and as > they did with other packages, will probably defer the judgment back to > us. If we do, we should take this responsibility very seriously because > the arch teams, if nothing else, are a double check on our work.
For the time being, I'm focusing my attention on server-side testing: integrated virtual environments running bind, openldap for authentication with replication, a load-balanced apache setup offering squirrelmail access to a virtual mailhosting setup (postfix/courier) and a standalone postgres (still looking for something nice to fully test postgres with). I'm extending the environment with more and more services so that I have some testing environments for most of the servers (for instance, I have a build server that uses lighttpd) for which we have policies. However, - I'm focussing on strict policy (no unconfined domains) which is a major shortage as we definitely want to support unconfined as well. - Although I run my desktops with SELinux strict as well, I'm hardly what can be called a multimedia-user: apart from firefox and skype, all utilities I use are mostly command-line ;-) So support for desktop-oriented SELinux might still be lacking stuff. The reasons are fairly simple: - Strict allows us to focus on the policy itself and, in theory, if a strict policy works well, unconfined should work well too as far as the same activities are concerned. - Desktop applications are far too difficult to automatically test (regressions), which leads me to - I hardly have the time to run manual tests ;-) Of course, when there are bugs (for instance with unconfined) it's a small step to convert to the targeted policy and verify if it is reproduceable (like it was with that pesky bug you mentioned in the beginning of your mail). > So far I see only a few bugs that need addressing still in bugzilla. > (The bug reports are a bit disorganized because of how they were > assigned. We're going to be assigning selinux bugs to > [email protected] for easy lookup.) > > I think these are blockers to stabilization. Any others you want to add > to the list? > > #355675 - No brainer. I'll test the patch there this afternoon and put > it on the tree later if it works. > > #346563 - sounds like a profile problem, but I'm not sure its valid If we go for stabilization (and I wouldn't mind, as most additional servers that I'm setting up hardly require updates on the policy) we should push the SELinux Hardened Handbook (currently in hardened-doc.git) as well as the SELinux FAQ. Also, the moment we stabilize, can we please get the "loadpolicy" stuff out of our profile (selinux/make.defaults) ;-) Anyhow, #346563 is about that weird multilib/nomultilib situation. SELinux profiles currently enable multilib and "-multilib" (aka "no-multilib") is for the time being not supported. But we might need to focus on this in the near future as I would assume in server environments no-multilib is preferred. Wkr, Sven Vermeulen
