Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 11:37 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting Stephen Smalley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 07:20 -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 18:21 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > > Here is a patch against this morning's ltp cvs snapshot to implement > > > > > Stephen's suggestion of setting expand-check=0 for the duration of > > > > > the policy load. This allowed me to get rid of the hack > > > > > ++domain_type(test_create_no_t) in refpolicy/test_task_create.te, also > > > > > done in this patch. > > > > > > > > > > (I think it also inlines a patch Stephen sent on jan 23 which > > > > > wasn't yet in ltp cvs) > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, no one has merged the two patches that I sent > > > > earlier, which explains why you are still seeing failures (the one patch > > > > I sent added permissions needed for the tests). I've seen no reply to > > > > my patches, although I've seen other patches responded to. > > > > > > Actually, I see that your patch does include the permissions from my > > > patch (still not sure why my patch hasn't been merged), so I don't know > > > why you'd still be seeing failures. I only get 3 failures with my > > > patch applied, on inherit and fdreceive (due to Fedora 8 policy granting > > > fd:use permission liberally to all domains) and on task_create (due to > > > the refpolicy granting process:fork to all domains), so I would only > > > expect you to get 2 failures after your patch. > > > > Interesting. I'll look into some these on Friday. Here is the list of > > failures btw: > > Backing out my patch and applying yours, I get the following (as > expected). Make sure you are actually using the right version of your > diff (e.g. are you using a stale version of it due to the PATCHED file > still laying around)?
Hmm - I don't think so, I've pulled down a whole new ltp snapshot. But I suspect there is *something* in a funky state, so I guess I might just have to install a new test system. -serge > > Test Start Time: Wed Jan 30 14:45:13 2008 > ----------------------------------------- > Testcase Result Exit Value > -------- ------ ---------- > SELinux01 PASS 0 > SELinux02 PASS 0 > SELinux03 PASS 0 > SELinux04 PASS 0 > SELinux05 PASS 0 > SELinux06 PASS 0 > SELinux07 PASS 0 > SELinux08 PASS 0 > SELinux09 FAIL 1 > SELinux10 PASS 0 > SELinux11 FAIL 1 > SELinux12 PASS 0 > SELinux13 PASS 0 > SELinux14 PASS 0 > SELinux15 PASS 0 > SELinux16 PASS 0 > SELinux17 PASS 0 > SELinux18 PASS 0 > SELinux19 PASS 0 > SELinux20 PASS 0 > SELinux21 PASS 0 > SELinux22 PASS 0 > SELinux23 PASS 0 > SELinux24 PASS 0 > SELinux25 PASS 0 > SELinux26 PASS 0 > SELinux27 PASS 0 > SELinux28 PASS 0 > SELinux29 PASS 0 > SELinux30 PASS 0 > SELinux31 PASS 0 > SELinux32 PASS 0 > SELinux33 PASS 0 > SELinux34 PASS 0 > SELinux35 PASS 0 > SELinux36 PASS 0 > SELinux37 PASS 0 > SELinux38 PASS 0 > > ----------------------------------------------- > Total Tests: 38 > Total Failures: 2 > Kernel Version: 2.6.23.14-107.fc8 > Machine Architecture: i686 > > > -- > Stephen Smalley > National Security Agency ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
