two new questions (sort of)

[Eric Paris]

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