Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixed selinux creation #15077

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fixed selinux creation #15077

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

TDD788
Copy link

@TDD788 TDD788 commented Feb 13, 2025

Thanks for helping us make a better snapd!
Have you signed the license agreement and read the contribution guide?

Copy link

Hey! TDD788 has not signed the Canonical CLA which is required to get this contribution merged on this project.

Please head over to https://ubuntu.com/legal/contributors to read more about it.

Copy link
Contributor

@bboozzoo bboozzoo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm confused why the PR is adding new types which are defined in reference policies already. Can you elaborate?

allow init_t snappy_snap_t:filesystem remount;

# Definir los tipos si no están definidos
type unconfined_exec_t;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

these types are already defined in the reference policy see https://github.com/SELinuxProject/refpolicy/blob/acbe8e62cb712403e238d692e11f983c438e52ce/config/appconfig-standard/default_type, and then supporting types are part of the unconfined module: https://github.com/SELinuxProject/refpolicy/blob/acbe8e62cb712403e238d692e11f983c438e52ce/policy/modules/system/unconfined.te

then surprisingly the upstream reference policy does not have unconfined_service_t, but Fedora's reference policy does:
https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy/blob/1e6221cdad83095faff06774c600a308544d64b8/policy/modules/system/unconfined.te

I guess depending where you get your policy from you end up with different outcomes. In any case, our goal is not to deal with where downstream distributions get their policies from.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants