Can dccp socket support be merged/added to refpolicy?
The dccp_socket class was added but refpolicy was never adapted to this
addition.
We tried to do this in Fedora, so that might be usable to some degree.
( i guess it can at least be used as rough guide to what we think needs
to be done to add this support )
Please see the two commits regarding dccp sockets:
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=selinux-policy.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=dccp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://oss.tresys.com/pipermail/refpolicy/attachments/20110927/4a1fc348/attachment-0001.bin
On 09/27/11 03:58, Dominick Grift wrote:
> Can dccp socket support be merged/added to refpolicy?
>
> The dccp_socket class was added but refpolicy was never adapted to this
> addition.
I definitely don't oppose this, but I don't remember seeing much usage of DCCP. I wouldn't reject a patch because it has DCCP.
> We tried to do this in Fedora, so that might be usable to some degree.
> ( i guess it can at least be used as rough guide to what we think needs
> to be done to add this support )
>
> Please see the two commits regarding dccp sockets:
>
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=selinux-policy.git&a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=dccp
I took a cursory look, and it seems ok, but some of the unrelated changes would have to be filtered out.
--
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
http://www.tresys.com | oss.tresys.com