Quoting Christopher J. PeBenito ([email protected]):
> On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 11:14 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Stephen Smalley ([email protected]):
> > > On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 11:51 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 08:42 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 21:32 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > > > > > I'm trying to run the LTP SELinux tests using the latest CVS
> > > > > > version of
> > > > > > LTP and current Fedora development, and get the following policy
> > > > > > compilation error:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > Compiling targeted test_policy module
> > > > > >
> > > > > > test_policy.te:1730: Warning: r_dir_perms is deprecated please use
> > > > > > list_dir_perms instead.
> > > > > > test_policy.te:1731: Warning: r_file_perms is deprecated please use
> > > > > > read_file_perms instead.
> > > > > > [lots of warnings similar to the above]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /usr/bin/checkmodule: loading policy configuration from
> > > > > > tmp/test_policy.tmp
> > > > > > test_policy.te":16:ERROR 'syntax error' at token
> > > > > > 'userdom_use_sysadm_terms' on line 3198:
> > > > > > userdom_use_sysadm_terms(testdomain)
> > > > > > # This allows read and write sysadm ttys and ptys.
> > > > > > /usr/bin/checkmodule: error(s) encountered while parsing
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > make[1]: *** [tmp/test_policy.mod] Error 1
> > > > > > make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/share/selinux/devel'
> > > > > > make: *** [load] Error 2
> > > > > > Failed to build and load test_policy module, aborting test run.
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this likely to be fixed soon, and/or any suggestions for a
> > > > > > workaround?
> > > > >
> > > > > It won't compile with the current trunk refpolicy, since the current
> > > > > release was a major, API breaking change. I'll try to get a patch out
> > > > > shortly.
> > > >
> > > > I updated the policy since its fairly old, though I didn't convert its
> > > > raw rules over to use interfaces. However this didn't completely fix
> > > > it, as there is usage of a "unconfined_runs_test()", which isn't in the
> > > > upstream refpolicy nor the fedora policy, as far as I can see. One of
> > > > the updates includes use of sysadm_entry_spec_domtrans_to(), which is in
> > > > the upstream refpolicy, but doesn't seem to have made its way downstream
> > > > to the fedora policy. I have attached my work so someone familiar with
> > > > the LTP test cases can use it to complete the fix.
> > >
> > > Serge put together a patch and script under selinux-testsuite/misc that
> > > defines unconfined_runs_test() as well as converting some of the
> > > interfaces. That was done so that the ltp testsuite could still be run
> > > on older distributions (w/ the older policy) and on newer distributions
> > > (w/ the patch applied to perform conversion). It was originally done
> > > based on the deprecation of the sbin interfaces, which is why it is
> > > named that way even though it now includes more than just conversion of
> > > those interfaces.
> >
> > (Sorry, this thread is rolling into my inbox delayed and out-of-order)
> >
> > So the unconfined_runs_test() shouldn't actually be a problem (right,
> > Chris? pls let me know if you actually get compile failures as then
> > something went wrong with the build scripts).
>
> I just went to the directory and ran make. Sounds like I might have
> done something wrong.
>
> > But what could have happened with sysadm_entry_spec_domtrans_to()? It
> > must have been in fedora's policy before, since it definately worked on
> > fedora 7 and 8. Has it been removed? (I'll fire up a f10 partition and
> > look through the policy sources...)
>
> Well it used to be userdom_sysadm_entry_spec_domtrans_to().
>
> > As for the list_dir_perms and read_file_perms, have those always macros
> > in the refpolicy? If so, then a straight search-and-replace is fine.
> > If not, then we'll have to do another hook at the policy build to make
> > the substitutions only when the policy is new enough. :(
>
> Those have been around for a while. While the old r_dir_perms and
> r_file_perms macros aren't going anywhere for the forseeable future,
> their use is problematic as those may not get updated for new perms,
> such as open.
So I guess we should switch all the instances over, and have
misc/update_refpolicy.sh switch them back if list_dir_perms
doesn't exist.
What would be a good way to determine whether we're in a kernel
version too old to use those? Can we just check whether
sestatus | grep version | awk -F: '{ print $2 '} is less than,
say, 22?
thanks,
-serge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
