From: cpebenito@tresys.com (Christopher J. PeBenito)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:27:59 -0400
Subject: [refpolicy] Best approach for adding inet socket support for
 milters?
In-Reply-To: <4E70B8C8.6000608@tresys.com>
References: <4E6E1933.1030100@city-fan.org> <4E70B8C8.6000608@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <4E70D60F.5090705@tresys.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 09/14/11 10:23, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On 09/12/11 10:37, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> I'd rather return to my original suggestion of having a milter_port_t be 
>> supported out of the box and then let admins use semanage to define any 
>> ports they wanted to use as milter_port_t.
> 
> This is fine.  I can't remember if I originally rejected this (I'm guessing I did), but I'm fine with it now.  We already have examples of this, eg, stunnel.  We should look into augmenting the corenetwork infrastructure so that the network_port() macro can handle no defined ports, so that interfaces for the type will be created.  I believe this already works for the interface generation, but the te side needs to be tweaked to not emit an incomplete portcon statement.
 
This ended up being straightforward.  I updated corenetwork so that it supports defining a port type without labeling any specific ports.  That'll get the interfaces generated so we can write policy correctly (look at the contrib commit if you're not sure what I mean).

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
www.tresys.com | oss.tresys.com