From: paul@city-fan.org (Paul Howarth)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:24:09 +0100
Subject: [refpolicy] Milter Mail Filters
In-Reply-To: <1223493745.2165.113.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
References: <484D4B53.5020006@city-fan.org> <1216385922.21191.125.camel@gorn>
	<48982587.30605@city-fan.org>
	<1220621188.28287.79.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
	<48C6A124.7090707@city-fan.org> <48D78F39.3040801@city-fan.org>
	<1223302377.2165.5.camel@gorn> <48ECB037.2070203@city-fan.org>
	<1223493745.2165.113.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
Message-ID: <20081010192409.0a76e299@metropolis.intra.city-fan.org>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:22:25 -0400
"Christopher J. PeBenito" <cpebenito@tresys.com> wrote:

> Moving to refpolicy list.
> 
> On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 14:05 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:27 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > >> Updated patch: sendmail, when run as "newaliases", tries to
> > >> getattr() milter sockets as well as the directories they live
> > >> in, so I changed the 
> > >> milter_getattr_all_data_dirs interface to
> > >> milter_getattr_all_sockets.
> > >>
> > >> I also moved the call to this interface in mta.te out from the
> > >> middle of 
> > >> a bunch of postfix-related lines.
> > >>
> > >> Paul.
> > > 
> > > I think my last two comments are
> > > 
> > > * you can't require milter_port_t.  It doesn't seem like a
> > > generic port type would be useful anyway, otherwise there would
> > > be a port defined.
> > 
> > So I should change "allow milter_$1_t milter_port_t:tcp_socket 
> > name_bind;" to "corenet_tcp_bind_generic_port($1_milter_t)"?
> 
> No.  I don't see how it makes sense to have a port type common to all
> milters.
> 
> > I can do that but I don't understand why milter_port_t should be
> > any different than say stunnel_port_t, which also doesn't have a
> > default port defined, and would be used in a similar way, i.e. an
> > admin would set up an application to use a specific port (a milter
> > running over tcp needs to have a port specified, just a tunnel set
> > up using stunnel does 
> > - they don't just bind to random generic ports).
> 
> This is not comparable, as there is only one stunnel domain, whereas
> there are several milter domains.

OK, I get that now, I'll use $1_milter_port_t instead then. But the 
question then arises: how to interface to it? You say I can't require 
milter_port_t and I guess that applies to $1_milter_port_t too.
However, as there are no defined ports for these types, there's no
expansion of network_port() for these types from corenetwork.te.in and
hence no corenet_tcp_bind_$1_milter_port interface for me to call. I
got the "require milter_port_t" idea from a similar structure in the
stunnel policy.

How to proceed with this?

Paul.