From: justinmattock@gmail.com (Justin P. Mattock) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:23:47 -0800 Subject: [refpolicy] Basic policy for KDE and Konqueror, third look In-Reply-To: <201001271623.37040.Nicky726@gmail.com> References: <200909141120.35378.Nicky726@gmail.com> <1253107894.27614.45.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com> <201001271623.37040.Nicky726@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6092C3.40206@gmail.com> To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com On 01/27/10 07:23, Nicky726 wrote: > Hello, > > here I am again after some time, with my Konqueror policy related questions. I > was too busy with the school, but by now I managed to incorporate almost all > commets by Chris PeBenito, I only need to do some testing, which is where I > got stuck again. > > I've got this ugly hack just for testing purposes: > > gen_require(` > type unconfined_t; > role unconfined_r; > ') > > konqueror_role(unconfined_r, unconfined_t) > > in konqueror.te so that Konqueror is run in correct context. (work-in-progress > .if file inculeded). Problem is that, when I run Konqueror, context is not > changed, it still is unconfined... > > Did I missed some revolutionary change in refpolicy or Fedora in last 4 > months, which causes this, or have I some stupid mistake in my policy? > > I was also trying to put this konqueror_role call somewhere, where it should > be -- not that I'm sure, where it is, as there is big difference between > refpolicy and Fedora. To make it short there is too much code for me to > follow, and too much changes in Fedora policy patches. How do the refpolicy > developpers test their policies btw? > > Guess thats all for now. Thanks for your answers and patience, > Ondrej Vadinsky > > > > _______________________________________________ > refpolicy mailing list > refpolicy at oss.tresys.com > http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy not sure what to do with konqueror, but in general whats the file label in /usr/lib/* and in the home dir..(this way other people can see, then go from there); Justin P. Mattock