Re: SE-PostgreSQL for Fedora (Re: Guideline for RPM packages)

[KaiGai Kohei]

Joshua Brindle wrote:
>  KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> > By the way, I'm seeking sponsors who can review SE-PostgreSQL package.
> >
> >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249522
> >
> > If you can volunteer the reviewing process, please contact me.
> >   
>  
>  So, I tried grabbing the sepostgres srpm and building it (you didn't
>  provide an x86_64 rpm) and I get these compilation errors:
>  
>  gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
>  -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -Wall
>  -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline
>  -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing -g -D
>  SECCLASS_DATABASE= -I../../../src/include -D_GNU_SOURCE -c -o
>  sepgsqlCore.o sepgsqlCore.c
>  sepgsqlCore.c: In function 'sepgsqlGetDatabaseContext':
>  sepgsqlCore.c:792: error: expected expression before ')' token
>  sepgsqlCore.c: In function 'sepgsqlInitialize':
>  sepgsqlCore.c:836: error: expected expression before ',' token
>  sepgsqlCore.c:854: error: expected expression before ',' token
>  make[3]: *** [sepgsqlCore.o] Error 1
>  make[3]: Leaving directory
>  `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/postgresql-8.2.4/src/backend/security'
>  make[2]: *** [security-recursive] Error 2 
Joshua,

It seems to me that SECCLASS_DATABASE is defined as empty.

It is normally computed at %build section of the specfile as follows:

  SECCLASS_DATABASE=`grep ^define %{_datadir}/selinux/devel/include/support/all_perms.spt
\
                         | cat -n | grep all_database_perms | awk '{print $1}'`
  make CUSTOM_COPT=" -D SECCLASS_DATABASE=${SECCLASS_DATABASE}" %{?_smp_mflags}

Thus, selinux-policy-devel-xxx-sepgsql have to be installed to build.

If SECCLASS_DATABASE is not defined, it's defined as 61 being next to
SECCLASS_DCCP_SOCKET.
It is correct, if Fedora 6. But incorrect on the latest Fedora 7 and Rawhide.

As you mentioned, I also think this trick is not a good idea.
However, the number of object classes is not constant between policy versions,
so I had to handle the difference and to follow the version up.
I modified it by hand at first, but conditional definition for SECCLASS_DATABASE
got necessary, because the number of object classes got differ between Fedora core 6
and Fedora 7.

I think integration of these definitions into the base policy is the best way
to avoid such a ugly implementation. :)

Thanks,

>  As an aside to this, I notice that you tried to integrate policy
>  management into the RPM, and I had to modify my spec file to not do this
>  because I have my own custom policies on the system. I don't think this
>  is the best way, long term, to handle policy integration, though,
>  unfortunately, I don't have any better suggestions. This is something I
>  intend to look into soon though so I'll provide some feedback on the
>  previous thread when I have something useful to say :) 
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(a)kaigai.gr.jp&gt;