Policy redundancy and layout
 

On 03/01/2010 06:46 PM, Scott Salley wrote:
> I have a project with multiple daemons (around 6) which share many
> common features (they access the network, create and maintain daemon
> specific files, access random numbers, etc...), though they each deal
> with a different set of tasks (monitoring network resources, providing
> network file sharing services, providing network authentication
> services, etc).
>
>
>
> Is it okay to use the interface file to define a set of common
> properties for these daemons to avoid listing everything out for each
> daemon? If not the interface file, then how should a common set of
> patterns for these daemons be defined?
>

I usually use attributes for that. For example let us assume you have a
suite of apps to confine.

In that case you could assign an attribute mysuite_domains to each
domain type.

Then you can write the policy that all of the apps in your suite have in
common using the mysuite_domains attirbute instead of the individual types.

You can find some examples in my policy repository:

git://84.245.6.206/selinux-modules.git

And in particular the telepathy.te file.

########################################
#
# Telepathy global personal policy.
#

allow tp_domains self:process { getsched signal };
allow tp_domains self:fifo_file rw_fifo_file_perms;

.. etc, etc ..


>
> I found listing the rules for each daemon to be bug prone and tedious.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> selinux mailing list
> selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux


--
selinux mailing list
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux

Policy redundancy and layout
 

On 03/01/2010 06:46 PM, Scott Salley wrote:
> I have a project with multiple daemons (around 6) which share many
> common features (they access the network, create and maintain daemon
> specific files, access random numbers, etc...), though they each deal
> with a different set of tasks (monitoring network resources, providing
> network file sharing services, providing network authentication
> services, etc).
>
>
>
> Is it okay to use the interface file to define a set of common
> properties for these daemons to avoid listing everything out for each
> daemon? If not the interface file, then how should a common set of
> patterns for these daemons be defined?
>
>
>
> I found listing the rules for each daemon to be bug prone and tedious.
>
>


And you can also use attributes in interfaces.

For example (from telepathy.if):

########################################
## <summary>
## Send DBus messages to and from
## all Telepathy domains.
## </summary>
## <param name="domain">
## <summary>
## Domain allowed access.
## </summary>
## </param>
#
interface(`telepathy_dbus_chat', `
gen_require(`
attribute tp_domains;
class dbus send_msg;
')

allow $1 tp_domains:dbus send_msg;
allow tp_domains $1:dbus send_msg;
')

(from telepathy.te):

optional_policy(`
telepathy_dbus_chat(tp_domains)
')

Meaning each domain type that has the tp_domains attribute assigned can
dbus chat to each domain type that has the tp_domains attribute assigned.


>
>
>
> --
> selinux mailing list
> selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux


--
selinux mailing list
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux

Policy redundancy and layout
 

On 03/01/2010 12:46 PM, Scott Salley wrote:






I have a project with multiple daemons (around
6) which
share many common features (they access the network, create and
maintain daemon
specific files, access random numbers, etc…), though they each deal
with
a different set of tasks (monitoring network resources, providing
network file
sharing services, providing network authentication services, etc).

Â*

Is it okay to use the interface file to define a
set of
common properties for these daemons to avoid listing everything out for
each
daemon? If not the interface file, then how should a common set of
patterns for
these daemons be defined?

Â*

I found listing the rules for each daemon to be
bug prone
and tedious.

Â*




--
selinux mailing list
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux

Yes this is done with apache cgi scripts for example, nagios.



A lot of time these use templates to generate the types.Â* Also lookinto
using attributes to associate rules with the types



type $1_t, MYDOMAIN;





Then in the te file you add rules like



files_read_etc_files(MDOMAIN)



--
selinux mailing list
selinux@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/selinux