|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > selinux archives|
Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 11:44 -0500, Joshua Brindle wrote:
>> Stephen Smalley wrote:
>>> Overall, I have to wonder if we are really buying anything via
>>> per-module capability declaration vs. per-policy. The only reason you
>>> tried to make it per-module was you were trying to drop distinctions
>>> between base and non-base, right? But maybe we shouldn't be so
>>> concerned with having a notion of a base module even if we reduce the
>>> differences between what is supported by base vs. non-base
>> At first that was my reason but after talking it seems like doing it in
>> base is bad for the same reason that allowing a single module to turn on
>> a cap is. Why should base be able to turn on the cap if all the other
>> modules aren't written wrt the cap?
> Upgrade of base usually reflects a full policy update, whereas inserting
> a random module does not. And if base doesn't work (e.g. doesn't have
> the capabilities it requires), then the system likely won't boot or
> function at all (modulo legacy rules). I'm more comfortable with
> letting base dictate the policy capabilities than other modules.
I am not comfortable with base changing anything about other modules. If base can turn on capabilities without regard to the modules being installed then everything built as modules that uses network controls (or whatever future caps affect) suddenly don't work. I also don't want to just punt on this decision for now because we don't know the answer, we'll have to answer it eventually if we successfully get rid of the base vs. module distinction. -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.