[refpolicy] Transition unconfined users to dpkg_t domain

Laurent Bigonville bigon at debian.org
Fri Jan 10 12:27:32 EST 2014

Le Fri, 10 Jan 2014 09:51:17 -0500,
Stephen Smalley <sds at tycho.nsa.gov> a écrit :

> On 01/10/2014 06:47 AM, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> > Le Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:32:03 -0500,
> > Stephen Smalley <sds at tycho.nsa.gov> a écrit :
> > 
> >> On 01/09/2014 03:26 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It has been like that for years.  Might have been a chicken and
> >>> egg problem on initial install.  RPM Now has better flexibility.
> >>
> >> bootstrapping issue - needed to know the right domain prior to any
> >> policy files being installed on the filesystem.
> > 
> > Does that means that rpm and dpkg are supposed to work even if the
> > files in /etc/selinux/<my_current_policy> are missing?
> > 
> > With dpkg (that use the rpm_execcon-like function) I'm getting the
> > following error in that case:
> >  cannot get security labeling handle: No such file or directory
> I think they always set down a pre-generated file_contexts file just
> for that purpose, but otherwise weren't guaranteed any other config
> files. But that was all the original rpm selinux integration; I don't
> know the current state of things.


About my initial issue with dpkg exiting if it cannot transition to
"dpkg_script_t" from unconfined users. How do you think this should be
solved? People doesn't like the transition of unconfined domains to
confined ones (I agree with this), so you think this should be fixed in
the code (setexecfilecon() or dpkg) or this could achieved in an other
way in the policy?


Laurent Bigonville

More information about the refpolicy mailing list