|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/23/2012 02:29 PM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: > On 05/23/12 13:46, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >> On 05/23/2012 01:32 PM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: >>> On 05/23/12 11:46, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >>>> On 05/21/2012 04:58 PM, Sven Vermeulen wrote: >>>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>>> It looks like the current stable sepolgen release has requirements >>>>> towards an unofficial (well, fedora/rhel only) patch on setools. >>>>> With the current stable setools, it gives the following error when >>>>> trying to use audit2allow on a denial that contains write & open: >>>> >>>>> Traceback (most recent call last): File >>>>> "/usr/bin/audit2allow-2.7", line 354, in <module> app.main() File >>>>> "/usr/bin/audit2allow-2.7", line 345, in main self.__output() File >>>>> "/usr/bin/audit2allow-2.7", line 315, in __output >>>>> g.add_access(self.__avs) File >>>>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sepolgen/policygen.py", line >>>>> 211, in add_access self.__add_allow_rules(raw_allow) File >>>>> "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/sepolgen/policygen.py", line >>>>> 179, in __add_allow_rules self.domains = seinfo(ATTRIBUTE, >>>>> name="domain")["types"] NameError: global name 'seinfo' is not >>>>> defined >>>> >>>>> The patch that RedHat (and Fedora) provides fixes this in Python 2 >>>>> systems, but doesn't work in Python 3 (because Python 3 has a >>>>> different setup for Extension-based modules). I have a >>>>> locally-tested patch on that, but I'm not sure this is a good way >>>>> to go forward. >>>> >>>>> Perhaps it would be wise to remove the dependency towards the >>>>> setools binding and instead include the necessary code in the >>>>> userspace libraries themselves? policygen.py doesn't require the >>>>> entire set of querying that seinfo provides... >>>> >>>>> The patch that is suggested by RedHat/Fedora doesn't follow the >>>>> same structure as the other bindings do (like libqpol/libapol) in >>>>> setools too. >>>> >>>>> Wkr, Sven Vermeulen >>>> >>>> Well I am not sure if anyone has ever used the setools python >>>> binaries other then the setools/sesearch and seinfo bindings. >>>> >>>> I would suggest we drop the general python bindings or deemphasize >>>> them and work on improving the seinfo/sesearch bindings. >> >>> I don't have a problem with a simpler api, e.g. a single function for >>> rule searching, rather than the multiple calls to set up a query, but >>> the current implementation in Fedora isn't acceptable to upstream >>> setools. Perhaps what should be done is to add a basic query api to the >>> SELinux userspace upstream, so that you can create all of these tools. >>> Libqpol in setools tries to do this, but its implementation wouldn't be >>> acceptable upstream. Then the extra dependency of sepolgen on setools >>> could be broken. >> >> >> What is not acceptable, the entire idea of setools.sesearch and >> setools.seinfo or something specific about the design? Or do you want >> setools to just be low level calls and want us to build a new package >> that actualy does something useful with python? >> >> IE Do you want us to just create a new tool called seanalyze or something >> that includes the python bindings that we find useful. > > Well its up to SELinux upstream to say if they'd accept a libsequery or > libseanalyze or augment libsepol. In the absence of that, the issue with > what you have is the implementation. The preference would be to add the > new single function query API to libapol either in the C library sources or > in pure python using the existing swig wrappers. It would also have to be > a complete API (i.e. apol could be converted to use it), which is more than > sesearch and seinfo support. > Sure and if they don't do stuff that is useful, then people will ignore upstream and do what they want. Implementing the C Api in python is useless. I am not interested in reinventing sesearch and seinfo from base level constructs in python. I would just rather get the data into a dictionary and then do what I want with it. But if upstream is not interested in these tools then other downstreams loose out. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+9MGsACgkQrlYvE4MpobOttgCglTf4GVP6lSj7NgSyV+IvjjGN b/IAnRFlQl6nzCQfScJ/x5Eh8JDKOPo/ =Mdq7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
[Fedora Users] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Desktop] [Yosemite Photos] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Campsites] [KDE Users] [Gnome Users]