[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] tools: make flask utils build unconditional
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 04:24:19PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2016-01-05 at 16:13 +0000, 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. > > With XSM disabled? > > > As you said it only depends on availability > > of checkpolicy (part of generic SELinux utils, not the ones we build). > > But then why does this file only show up for me with this patch applied? > > You initially objected to this patch because you thought it would add this > file, but it seems like you have always had it. Is the answer just that you > only just found that you always had it? > Hmm... After I make distclean, things changed. So to be clear: without this patch applied, I don't have xenpolicy file even if checkpolicy is available. This patch does alter the behaviour somehow. I'm in the middle of rebasing one patch series, so I haven't looked into all the details. > > > > 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. > > Indeed. > > > 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. > > > We just need to reach an agreement on how to proceed. I would vote for > > the second solution. > > Which is what? This patch as is? (and what is the first proposition?) > That was referring to grub generating XSM entries. First solution is my not yet upstream patch; second is to make gurb grep .config for flask information. Wei. > Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |