2018-07-01 15:02:33 +00:00
|
|
|
policy_module(modutils, 1.20.0)
|
2005-11-29 21:27:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-05-11 15:46:51 +00:00
|
|
|
########################################
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
# Declarations
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-02-18 21:09:24 +00:00
|
|
|
attribute_role kmod_roles;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-10-30 18:31:50 +00:00
|
|
|
type kmod_t alias { insmod_t depmod_t update_modules_t };
|
|
|
|
|
type kmod_exec_t alias { insmod_exec_t depmod_exec_t update_modules_exec_t };
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
application_domain(kmod_t, kmod_exec_t)
|
2016-12-07 01:01:22 +00:00
|
|
|
kernel_domtrans_to(kmod_t, kmod_exec_t)
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
mls_file_write_all_levels(kmod_t)
|
2017-02-18 21:09:24 +00:00
|
|
|
roleattribute system_r kmod_roles;
|
|
|
|
|
role kmod_roles types kmod_t;
|
2005-04-14 20:18:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2009-08-05 14:11:08 +00:00
|
|
|
# module loading config
|
|
|
|
|
type modules_conf_t;
|
|
|
|
|
files_type(modules_conf_t)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# module dependencies
|
|
|
|
|
type modules_dep_t;
|
|
|
|
|
files_type(modules_dep_t)
|
2005-04-20 21:00:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-02-18 21:16:30 +00:00
|
|
|
ifdef(`init_systemd',`
|
|
|
|
|
type kmod_tmpfiles_conf_t;
|
|
|
|
|
typealias kmod_tmpfiles_conf_t alias { kmod_var_run_t systemd_kmod_conf_t };
|
|
|
|
|
systemd_tmpfiles_conf_file(kmod_tmpfiles_conf_t)
|
|
|
|
|
systemd_tmpfiles_conf_filetrans(kmod_t, kmod_tmpfiles_conf_t, file)
|
|
|
|
|
')
|
2009-08-05 14:11:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-20 21:00:01 +00:00
|
|
|
########################################
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
# insmod local policy
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
allow kmod_t self:capability { dac_override net_raw sys_nice sys_tty_config };
|
|
|
|
|
allow kmod_t self:process { execmem sigchld sigkill sigstop signull signal };
|
2017-11-15 07:09:50 +00:00
|
|
|
# for the radeon/amdgpu modules
|
|
|
|
|
dontaudit kmod_t self:capability sys_admin;
|
2005-04-20 21:00:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
allow kmod_t self:udp_socket create_socket_perms;
|
|
|
|
|
allow kmod_t self:rawip_socket create_socket_perms;
|
2005-04-20 21:00:01 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2005-05-11 15:22:28 +00:00
|
|
|
# Read module config and dependency information
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
list_dirs_pattern(kmod_t, modules_conf_t, modules_conf_t)
|
|
|
|
|
read_files_pattern(kmod_t, modules_conf_t, modules_conf_t)
|
|
|
|
|
list_dirs_pattern(kmod_t, modules_dep_t, modules_dep_t)
|
|
|
|
|
manage_files_pattern(kmod_t, modules_dep_t, modules_dep_t)
|
2017-09-11 03:18:07 +00:00
|
|
|
allow kmod_t modules_dep_t:file map;
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
filetrans_add_pattern(kmod_t, modules_object_t, modules_dep_t, file)
|
|
|
|
|
create_files_pattern(kmod_t, modules_object_t, modules_dep_t)
|
|
|
|
|
delete_files_pattern(kmod_t, modules_object_t, modules_dep_t)
|
2017-09-11 03:18:07 +00:00
|
|
|
allow kmod_t modules_object_t:file map;
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can_exec(kmod_t, kmod_exec_t)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_load_module(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_request_load_module(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_read_system_state(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_read_network_state(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_write_proc_files(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_mount_debugfs(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_mount_kvmfs(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_read_debugfs(kmod_t)
|
2016-12-07 01:01:22 +00:00
|
|
|
kernel_search_key(kmod_t)
|
2005-04-14 20:18:17 +00:00
|
|
|
# Rules for /proc/sys/kernel/tainted
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
kernel_read_kernel_sysctls(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_rw_kernel_sysctl(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_read_hotplug_sysctls(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
kernel_setsched(kmod_t)
|
2014-01-16 16:24:25 +00:00
|
|
|
# for when /var is not mounted early in the boot:
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
kernel_dontaudit_search_unlabeled(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
corecmd_exec_bin(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
corecmd_exec_shell(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dev_rw_sysfs(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
dev_search_usbfs(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
dev_rw_mtrr(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
dev_read_urand(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
dev_rw_agp(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
dev_read_sound(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
dev_write_sound(kmod_t)
|
2017-04-26 10:36:20 +00:00
|
|
|
dev_rw_acpi_bios(kmod_t)
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
domain_signal_all_domains(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
domain_use_interactive_fds(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
files_read_kernel_modules(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
files_read_etc_runtime_files(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
files_read_etc_files(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
files_read_usr_files(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
files_exec_etc_files(kmod_t)
|
2017-04-19 01:17:36 +00:00
|
|
|
files_search_tmp(kmod_t)
|
2005-05-31 21:25:45 +00:00
|
|
|
# for nscd:
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
files_dontaudit_search_pids(kmod_t)
|
2016-12-23 01:15:14 +00:00
|
|
|
# to manage modules.dep
|
|
|
|
|
files_manage_kernel_modules(kmod_t)
|
2009-08-05 14:11:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
fs_getattr_xattr_fs(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
fs_dontaudit_use_tmpfs_chr_dev(kmod_t)
|
2005-04-14 20:18:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
init_rw_initctl(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
init_use_fds(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
init_use_script_fds(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
init_use_script_ptys(kmod_t)
|
2005-05-03 20:44:35 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
logging_send_syslog_msg(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
logging_search_logs(kmod_t)
|
2005-04-14 20:18:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
miscfiles_read_localization(kmod_t)
|
2005-04-14 20:18:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
seutil_read_file_contexts(kmod_t)
|
2006-01-27 20:13:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
userdom_use_user_terminals(kmod_t)
|
2008-11-05 16:10:46 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
userdom_dontaudit_search_user_home_dirs(kmod_t)
|
2008-02-05 18:24:43 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2016-11-27 16:41:45 +00:00
|
|
|
ifdef(`init_systemd',`
|
2017-02-18 21:16:30 +00:00
|
|
|
# for /run/tmpfiles.d/kmod.conf
|
|
|
|
|
allow kmod_t kmod_tmpfiles_conf_t:file manage_file_perms;
|
|
|
|
|
# kmod needs to create /run/tmpdiles.d
|
|
|
|
|
systemd_tmpfiles_creator(kmod_t)
|
2015-10-20 18:48:38 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2017-02-18 21:16:30 +00:00
|
|
|
init_rw_stream_sockets(kmod_t)
|
2015-10-20 18:48:38 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-12-01 14:23:11 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
alsa_domtrans(kmod_t)
|
2009-12-01 14:23:11 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-19 01:17:36 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
2018-02-15 22:10:34 +00:00
|
|
|
# for postinst of a new kernel package
|
2017-04-19 01:17:36 +00:00
|
|
|
dpkg_manage_script_tmp_files(kmod_t)
|
2018-02-15 22:10:34 +00:00
|
|
|
dpkg_map_script_tmp_files(kmod_t)
|
2017-04-19 01:17:36 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-12-01 14:23:11 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
firstboot_dontaudit_rw_pipes(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
firstboot_dontaudit_rw_stream_sockets(kmod_t)
|
2009-12-01 14:23:11 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
hal_write_log(kmod_t)
|
2009-12-01 14:23:11 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 16:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
hotplug_search_config(kmod_t)
|
2005-09-15 21:03:29 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-19 01:17:36 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
|
|
|
|
iptables_dontaudit_read_pids(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 16:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
mount_domtrans(kmod_t)
|
2005-04-20 21:00:01 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
2005-04-14 20:18:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 16:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
nis_use_ypbind(kmod_t)
|
2005-09-23 21:20:03 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 16:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
nscd_use(kmod_t)
|
2005-09-15 21:03:29 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 16:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
fs_manage_ramfs_files(kmod_t)
|
2006-03-09 19:02:29 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
rhgb_use_fds(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
rhgb_dontaudit_use_ptys(kmod_t)
|
2007-02-16 23:01:42 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
xserver_dontaudit_write_log(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
xserver_stream_connect(kmod_t)
|
|
|
|
|
xserver_dontaudit_rw_stream_sockets(kmod_t)
|
2006-03-09 19:02:29 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 16:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
rpm_rw_pipes(kmod_t)
|
2005-07-12 20:34:24 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 16:13:54 +00:00
|
|
|
optional_policy(`
|
2006-04-03 19:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
# cjp: why is this needed:
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
dev_rw_xserver_misc(kmod_t)
|
2006-04-03 19:49:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
single binary modutils
On Tuesday, 2 August 2016 7:59:28 PM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/31/16 08:34, Russell Coker wrote:
> > The following patch deals with a single binary for modutils, so depmod_t,
> > and insmod_t are merged.
>
> Since the main SELinux distros (including RHEL/CentOS 7) all have merged
> modutils these days, I'm open to taking a patch that fully merges these
> domains (in which case renaming to kmod_t, with proper aliasing seems
> the best idea).
>
> However, it's been some time since I used a busybox-based system; does
> busybox still have separated tools? Yes, this is a bit of an obvious
> question since busybox is also single-binary, but IIRC, the embedded
> guys made some tiny helper scripts or executables so proper
> transitioning could occur. Separate domains may still make sense.
As we have had no response from Busybox users in the last 3 months and also no
response to the thread Luis started in 2013 I think it's safe to assume that
they don't need this.
I've attached a new patch which renames to kmod_t as you suggested. Please
consider it for inclusion.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Description: Change modutils policy to match the use of a single binary
Author: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Last-Update: 2014-06-25
2016-10-21 08:35:53 +00:00
|
|
|
xserver_getattr_log(kmod_t)
|
2005-09-16 21:20:37 +00:00
|
|
|
')
|
2005-04-14 20:18:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
