From: guido@trentalancia.com (Guido Trentalancia)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:26:43 +0100
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH 28/34]: patch to allow reading hal pid files
 from ifconfig_t
In-Reply-To: <4D6BB59C.30105@tresys.com>
References: <1297838085.3205.105.camel@tesla.lan> <4D6BB59C.30105@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <1298917603.3123.2.camel@tesla.lan>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Mon, 28/02/2011 at 09.47 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On 02/16/11 01:34, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> > This patch allows to read hal pid files from the ifconfig_t
> > context.
> > 
> > diff -pruN refpolicy-git-15022011-new-before-modification/policy/modules/system/sysnetwork.te refpolicy-git-15022011-new-modified/policy/modules/system/sysnetwork.te
> > --- refpolicy-git-15022011-new-before-modification/policy/modules/system/sysnetwork.te	2011-01-08 19:07:21.363760466 +0100
> > +++ refpolicy-git-15022011-new-modified/policy/modules/system/sysnetwork.te	2011-02-15 23:28:42.843164809 +0100
> > @@ -327,6 +327,7 @@ ifdef(`hide_broken_symptoms',`
> >  optional_policy(`
> >  	hal_dontaudit_rw_pipes(ifconfig_t)
> >  	hal_dontaudit_rw_dgram_sockets(ifconfig_t)
> > +	hal_read_pid_files(ifconfig_t)
> >  ')
> >  
> >  optional_policy(`
> 
> Why would this be necessary?  Are you sure its not another leak
> (especially considering the other dontaudits)?

Yes, that is not strictly necessary. What do you mean exactly for a
leak ?

Regards,

Guido