1 |
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:06:47AM -0600, Chris Richards wrote: |
2 |
> My general feeling is that the system should operate FROM THE USER |
3 |
> PERSPECTIVE the way it always does, i.e. the existence of SELinux should |
4 |
> be relatively transparent to the user and/or administrator, at least to |
5 |
> the extent that is practical. There may be some things that you simply |
6 |
> can't avoid changing, but they should generally be few and far between. |
7 |
|
8 |
So you want the application to function properly and that the logs have no |
9 |
"cosmetic" AVC denials (fine - fully agree here). One thing that I can't |
10 |
gather from this is |
11 |
- do you want to dontaudit the AVC denials which apparently have no impact |
12 |
on functionality, or |
13 |
- do you want to allow the AVC denials even though they have no impact on |
14 |
functionality |
15 |
|
16 |
I personally don't mind having Gentoo Hardened pick the latter (we use |
17 |
SELinux to confine applications in the manner that no denial should ever be |
18 |
triggered as long as the application doesn't go beyond what it is programmed |
19 |
to do). Even though it might not be within the principle of "least |
20 |
privilege" (only allow what it needs), at least it gives the SELinux policy |
21 |
developer a clearer scope of his tasks. |
22 |
|
23 |
The problem with the first approach is that other users have a higher |
24 |
likelihood of having a malfunctioning system than with the last (what the |
25 |
developer sees as cosmetic might be important on other systems). |
26 |
|
27 |
Wkr, |
28 |
Sven Vermeulen |