Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
To:     selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org,
        Kenton Groombridge <me@concord.sh>
Reply-To: russell@coker.com.au
Subject: Re: [RFC] containers module in refpolicy
Date:   Thu, 12 Aug 2021 15:22:55 +1000
Message-ID: <1926875.vxbSVt8UrT@xev>
In-Reply-To: <20210811220728.erzu5drv6zlh2tpg@bubbles>
References: <20210811220728.erzu5drv6zlh2tpg@bubbles>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday, 12 August 2021 8:07:28 AM AEST Kenton Groombridge wrote:
> At this time refpolicy does not have much (if any) support for various
> container runtimes such as docker or podman. An issue was raised on
> container-selinux[1] about the possibility of allowing it to be built
> against refpolicy, but the question came up of whether or not it would
> be a better idea to instead introduce such a module specifically in
> refpolicy. Upstream seems to be open to the idea of making
> container-selinux work with refpolicy, but I worry that the task of
> maintaining the module will be more work in the long run.
> 
> What are your thoughts?

We have more than a few policy modules that aren't used by the regular 
contributors to refpolicy and which aren't well maintained.  Adding one more 
is no big deal.

Generally having a module in upstream policy that does most of what you want 
is better than nothing, you can just have a local module to do the remainder.  
When the types needed are defined it removes the potential compatibility 
issues of different implementations.

Where is the [1] reference?

-- 
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/