|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] tools: make flask utils build unconditional
On 1/5/16 10:13 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 03:36:21PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-01-05 at 14:37 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> >>> which on the basis of this discussion I wasn't expecting. I didn't see this >>> new file on i686 or ARM*. >>> >>> My baseline is from the last time I committed, which would be last year, so >>> maybe something other than my current batch of patches has caused this. >>> >>> I'm going to drop this one for now and (hopefully) get the rest of the >>> batch squared away. Afterwards I'll take another look (with a new baseline >>> filelist), but if someone can explain it in the meantime that would be >>> super. >> >> So with a fresh basline I still see: >> >> --- ../FILE_LIST.BASE.staging.x86_64 2016-01-05 14:50:32.000000000 +0000 >> +++ ../FILE_LIST.staging.x86_64 2016-01-05 15:11:15.000000000 +0000 >> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ >> dist/install/boot/xen-4.7-unstable.gz >> dist/install/boot/xen-4.gz >> dist/install/boot/xen.gz >> +dist/install/boot/xenpolicy-4.7-unstable >> dist/install/etc >> dist/install/etc/bash_completion.d >> dist/install/etc/bash_completion.d/xl.sh >> @@ -386,6 +387,12 @@ >> dist/install/usr/local/lib/xen/libexec >> dist/install/usr/local/lib/xen/libexec/qemu-bridge-helper >> dist/install/usr/local/sbin >> +dist/install/usr/local/sbin/flask-get-bool >> +dist/install/usr/local/sbin/flask-getenforce >> +dist/install/usr/local/sbin/flask-label-pci >> +dist/install/usr/local/sbin/flask-loadpolicy >> +dist/install/usr/local/sbin/flask-set-bool >> +dist/install/usr/local/sbin/flask-setenforce >> dist/install/usr/local/sbin/gdbsx >> dist/install/usr/local/sbin/gtracestat >> dist/install/usr/local/sbin/gtraceview >> *** FILES DIFFER *** >> >> On i686 and ARM* I only see the (expected) second hunk. >> >> I think the i686 case is explainable by the lack of a hypervisor build >> there, but I'm unsure why ARM* and x86_64 should differ in this regard. >> >> config/Tools.mk is y only on x86_64, not on the others, which obviously >> explains things, but the question is why only on x86_64 (I presume this has >> always been the case and it was previously masked, but I've not checked). >> >> Ah, OK, I misread >> >> AX_ARG_DEFAULT_ENABLE([xsmpolicy], [Disable XSM policy compilation]) >> >> as being default disable, actually the default is "enabled iff checkpolicy >> is installed" and it happens to be that it is only installed in my x86_64 >> build env. >> >> So, in the end I think Wei was correct and this change will now, in some >> circumstances, end up installing a /boot/xenpolicy-*. >> > > I don't think it is related to this patch. I see an xenpoilcy file > without this patch applied. As you said it only depends on availability > of checkpolicy (part of generic SELinux utils, not the ones we build). > > That said, let me try to answer the following question. > >> So the question is do we mind that? >> > > We might or might not. See below. > > I once submitted a patch to grub that look into /boot and generate XSM > entries if there is policy file. The patch is not yet merged though. > > Since there is no way at the moment to tell if xen.gz has flask enabled, > my not yet upstreamed patch only matches the version number of xen.gz and > xenpolicy. Installing xenpolicy when xen.gz is not flaks-capable will > make grub generate an XSM entry nonetheless, which makes no sense. > > Of course all the above is based on the theory that my grub patch is > going to be upstreamed. > > Things have changed since I first submitted that patch. Doug's Kconfig > work is good. With .config installed in suitable location we can make > grub grep for flask information in config, hence avoiding generating > wrong entries. I think this is better solution as we don't need to use > version number to match xen.gz and xenpolicy. If we go down this route > we don't mind having random xenpolicy lying around in /boot. So I submitted a patch to put the .config in /boot to have the ability to do this. I figured it needed to be in /boot because that's how the existing 20_linux_xen but there's some disagreement on the location. If we can resolve that I'll happily update the 20_linux_xen patch as well. http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-12/msg02369.html > > We just need to reach an agreement on how to proceed. I would vote for > the second solution. > > Wei. > > >> Ian. -- Doug Goldstein Attachment:
signature.asc _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |