From: dwalsh@redhat.com (Daniel J Walsh)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:47:01 -0400
Subject: [refpolicy] appconfig-mcs_default_contexts.patch
In-Reply-To: <1243438786.5421.52.camel@gorn>
References: <4A156664.5030701@redhat.com> <1243430190.5421.8.camel@gorn>	
	<4A1D5B76.2000603@redhat.com> <1243438786.5421.52.camel@gorn>
Message-ID: <4A1D6075.2010208@redhat.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 05/27/2009 11:39 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 11:25 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> On 05/27/2009 09:16 AM, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 10:34 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>>>> http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/SELinux/F11/appconfig-mcs_default_contexts.patch
>>>>
>>>> default context file should have one default context all of the other
>>>> types should be broken out into the users directory.
>>> I disagree.  We need defaults that work.
>>>
>> But the defaults are in the individual files which we now ship.  So as I
>> add new user ABC_U type I need to provide a
>> /etc/selinux/targeted/contexts/users/ABC_U
>>
>> And defaults_context will not work for that user if the ABC_U file is
>> not there.  So it will not Just work.
>
> If there is no default contexts specific to the seuser, the general
> default_contexts will be used.  It will cover people who want to add
> their own seuser but don't add a seuser-specific default_contexts.  It
> doesn't hurt to have all of these entries in the general
> default_contexts since all of the valid contexts are defined in policy.
>
But it doesn't help, and you end up with invalid context listed if you 
do not have that user type defined.

So if I don't have unconfined_t or sysadm_t I end up with a bogus listing.

I say make it user_u and move on.  I actually would get rid of the file 
altogether and force all user types to have a user context file.