In between conferences, technical writing jobs and traveling, we did a few changes under the hood for SELinux in Gentoo.

First of all, new policies are bumped and also stabilized (2.20130411-r3 is now stable, 2.20130411-r5 is \~arch). These have a few updates (mergers from upstream), and r5 also has preliminary support for tmpfiles (at least the OpenRC implementation of it), which is made part of the selinux-base-policy package.

The ebuilds to support new policy releases now are relatively simple copies of the live ebuilds (which always contain the latest policies) so that bumping (either by me or other developers) is easy enough. There's also a release script in our policy repository which tags the right git commit (the point at which the release is made), creates the necessary patches, uploads them, etc.

One of the changes made is to "drop" the BASEPOL variable. In the past, BASEPOL was a variable inside the ebuilds that pointed to the right patchset (and base policy) as we initially supported policy modules of different base releases. However, that was a mistake and we quickly moved to bumping all policies with every releaes, but kept the BASEPOL variable in it. Now, BASEPOL is "just" the ${PVR} value of the ebuild so no longer needs to be provided. In the future, I'll probably remove BASEPOL from the internal eclass and the selinux-base* packages as well.

A more important change to the eclass is support for the SELINUX_GIT_REPO and SELINUX_GIT_BRANCH variables (for live ebuilds, i.e. those with the 9999 version). If set, then they pull from the mentioned repository (and branch) instead of the default hardened-refpolicy.git repository. This allows for developers to do some testing on a different branch easily, or for other users to use their own policy repository while still enjoying the SELinux integration support in Gentoo through the sec-policy/* packages.

Finally, I wrote up a first attempt at our coding style, heavily based on the coding style from the reference policy of course (as our policy is still following this upstream project). This should allow the team to work better together and to decide on namings autonomously (instead of hours of discussing and settling for something as silly as an interface or boolean name ;-)


comments powered by Disqus