1 |
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:04:34PM +0100, Luis Ressel wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:21:08 +0000 |
3 |
> Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > 1. I can temporarily ignore the issue, perhaps hiding the cosmetic |
6 |
> > denial behind dontaudit statements |
7 |
> > 2. I can restrictively add to kernel_t those rules that do not |
8 |
> > trigger the neverallow rules and ignore/dontaudit the rest |
9 |
> > 3. I can break isolation a bit and explicitly add kernel_t to the |
10 |
> > neverallow rule exemption |
11 |
> > 4. I can move the necessary attributes and statements into the devices |
12 |
> > module (which is part of the base) |
13 |
> > 5. I can move forward with the storage-becomes-base approach |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I've been allowing this in my local policy since 2013. I'm sure it was |
16 |
> neccessary for something to work, however I don't recall what for. But |
17 |
> that means 1. is not really an option. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> For now, I'd just wait for more feedback on the refpolicy ML. This is |
20 |
> not an urgent problem, so I'd prefer not to diverge further from |
21 |
> upstream if we can avoid it. |
22 |
|
23 |
I also think we should deviate as little as possible from upstream. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> 5. seems to be the cleanest solution, but I've got to dig around a bit |
26 |
> in the refpolicy to estimate the amount of work it'd require. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> If we want a temporary fix, I'd go with 3. It's only a tiny change, so |
29 |
> it wouldn't cause too much confusing upstream divergence. |
30 |
|
31 |
I dont think this is a very high priority issue so we can probably |
32 |
upstream it first and then fix it in gentoo. Storage becoming base |
33 |
makes sense since storage is pretty important. The patch in the email |
34 |
seemed reasonable. although i think we'd also need to add to the eclass |
35 |
that when inserting a new module it will check priority 100 and remove |
36 |
it after inserting the new module. |
37 |
|
38 |
-- Jason |