2015-05-13 21:45 GMT+09:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
>> 2015-05-01 9:52 GMT+09:00 Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>:
>>> 2015-05-01 7:40 GMT+09:00 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>:
>>>> Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>>>>> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>>>>> > > The idea of making the regression test entirely independent of the
>>>>> > > system's policy would presumably solve this problem, so I'd kind of
>>>>> > > like to see progress on that front.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Apologies, I guess it wasn't clear, but that's what I was intending to
>>>>> > advocate.
>>>>> >
>>>>> OK, I'll try to design a new regression test policy that is independent
>>>>> from the system's policy assumption, like unconfined domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please give me time for this work.
>>>>
>>>> Any progress here?
>>>>
>>> Not done.
>>> The last version I rebuild had a trouble on user/role transition from
>>> unconfined_u/unconfined_r to the self defined user/role...
>>> So, I'm trying to keep the user/role field (that is not redefined for
>>> several years) but to define self domain/types (that have been
>>> redefined multiple times) for the regression test at this moment.
>>>
>> The second approach above works.
>> I defined a own privileged domain (sepgsql_regtest_superuser_t)
>> instead of system's unconfined_t domain.
>> The reason why regression test gets failed was, definition of
>> unconfined_t in the system default policy was changed to bypass
>> multi-category rules; which our regression test depends on.
>> So, the new sepgsql_regtest_superuser_t domain performs almost
>> like as unconfined_t, but restricted by multi-category policy as
>> traditional unconfined_t did.
>> It is self defined domain, so will not affected by system policy
>> change.
>> Even though the sepgsql-regtest.te still uses unconfined_u and
>> unconfined_r pair for selinux-user and role, it requires users to
>> define additional selinux-user by hand if we try to define own one.
>> In addition, its definition has not been changed for several years.
>> So, I thought it has less risk to rely on unconfined_u/unconfined_r
>> field unlike unconfined_t domain.
>
> Can you add this to the next CommitFest?
>
OK, done
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/5/249/
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>