portcon in a policy module?

[Rob Myers]

hello-

i tried to assign a port type in a policy module like so:

portcon tcp 1521 system_u:object_r:oracle_port_t:s0;

which fails unless i rebuild as a monolithic policy.  should this fail
or have i got something wrong?

i have found that using "semanage port -a -t oracle_port_t -p tcp 1521"
in the rpm post install script works.

what is the proper way to assign a port in a policy module?

thanks for any clues!

rob.

[Forrest Taylor]

On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 10:47 -0400, rob myers wrote:
> hello-
>
> i tried to assign a port type in a policy module like so:
>
> portcon tcp 1521 system_u:object_r:oracle_port_t:s0;
>
> which fails unless i rebuild as a monolithic policy.  should this fail
> or have i got something wrong?

Yes, portcon is only valid in the base module.
> i have found that using "semanage port -a -t oracle_port_t -p tcp 1521"
> in the rpm post install script works.
>
> what is the proper way to assign a port in a policy module?

This is the best way unless you are rebuilding the base module.

Forrest

[Stephen Smalley]

On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 10:47 -0400, rob myers wrote:
> hello-
>
> i tried to assign a port type in a policy module like so:
>
> portcon tcp 1521 system_u:object_r:oracle_port_t:s0;
>
> which fails unless i rebuild as a monolithic policy.  should this fail
> or have i got something wrong?
>
> i have found that using "semanage port -a -t oracle_port_t -p tcp 1521"
> in the rpm post install script works.
>
> what is the proper way to assign a port in a policy module?
>
> thanks for any clues!

semanage is the right approach for object contexts - they aren't
supported in policy modules (yet), and even if they were, there would be
the potential for ordering/overriding issues there.