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 at kaigai.gr.jp>