From: pjnuzzi@tycho.ncsc.mil (Paul Nuzzi) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:50:02 -0400 Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH] hadoop 1/10 -- unconfined In-Reply-To: <1285338053.1772.90.camel@jeremy-ubuntu> References: <20100921195753.GA5706@localhost.localdomain> <1285099440.1806.13.camel@jeremy-ubuntu> <4C9B5262.7080405@tycho.ncsc.mil> <1285338053.1772.90.camel@jeremy-ubuntu> Message-ID: <4CA0E75A.4080406@tycho.ncsc.mil> To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com On 09/24/2010 10:20 AM, Jeremy Solt wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 09:13 -0400, Paul Nuzzi wrote: >> On 09/21/2010 04:04 PM, Jeremy Solt wrote: >>> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 21:57 +0200, Dominick Grift wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Dominick Grift >>> Thanks Dominick. >>> >>> Paul, are you going to include all of his changes in your patch set? >> >> I guess it depends how we want to structure the patch. Do we want to upstream 9 different >> modules or one monolithic one? >> > > Does it make sense to have any of these modules without the rest of > hadoop? I see that zookeeper is a subproject of hadoop. Could it be used > separately or is it only used with hadoop systems? If they're all > dependent on each other, then I think they should be in one module. Keeping it all together is fine. The module could be split if a sysadmin decides to run HDFS without zookeeper. Not a big deal. I will continue to port it to one monolithic patch. >>>> --- >>>> :100644 100644 2ecdde8... 7a1b5de... M policy/modules/kernel/corenetwork.te.in >>>> :000000 100644 0000000... d88b5ff... A policy/modules/services/hadoop.fc >>>> :000000 100644 0000000... 6cc0049... A policy/modules/services/hadoop.if >>>> :000000 100644 0000000... 53a242b... A policy/modules/services/hadoop.te >>>> policy/modules/kernel/corenetwork.te.in | 4 + >>>> policy/modules/services/hadoop.fc | 40 ++++ >>>> policy/modules/services/hadoop.if | 247 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> policy/modules/services/hadoop.te | 347 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 4 files changed, 638 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>> > > >