When developing SELinux policies for new software (or existing ones whose policies I don't agree with) it is often more difficult to finish the policies so that they are broadly usable. When dealing with personal policies, having them "just work" is often sufficient. To make the policies reusable for distributions (or for the upstream project), a number of things are necessary:

  • Try structuring the policy using the style as suggested by refpolicy or Gentoo
  • Add the role interfaces that are most likely to be used or required, or which are in the current draft implemented differently
  • Refactor some of the policies to use refpolicy/Gentoo style interfaces
  • Remove the comments from the policies (as refpolicy does not want too verbose policies)
  • Change or update the file context definitions for default installations (rather than the custom installations I use)

This often takes quite some effort. Some of these changes (such as the style updates and commenting) are even counterproductive for me personally (in the sense that I don't gain any value from doing so and would have to start maintaining two different policy files for the same policy), and necessary only for upstreaming policies. As a result, I often finish with policies that I just leave for me personally or somewhere on a public repository (like these Neo4J and Ceph policies), without any activities already scheduled to attempt to upstream those.

But not contributing the policies to a broader public means that the effort is not known, and other contributors might be struggling with creating policies for their favorite (or necessary) technologies. So the majority of policies that I write I still hope to eventually push them out. But I noticed that these last few steps for upstreaming (the ones mentioned above) might only take a few hours of work, but take me over 6 months (or more) to accomplish (as I often find other stuff more interesting to do).

I don't know yet how to change the process to make it more interesting to use. However, I do have a couple of wishes that might make it easier for me, and perhaps others, to contribute:

  • Instead of reacting on contribution suggestions, work on a common repository together. Just like with a wiki, where we don't aim for a 100% correct and well designed document from the start, we should use the strength of the community to continuously improve policies (and to allow multiple people to work on the same policy). Right now, policies are a one-man publication with a number of people commenting on the suggested changes and asking the one person to refactor or update the change himself.
  • Document the style guide properly, but don't disallow contributions if they do not adhere to the style guide completely. Instead, merge and update. On successful wikis there are even people that update styles without content updates, and their help is greatly appreciated by the community.
  • If a naming convention is to be followed (which is the case with policies) make it clear. Too often the name of an interface is something that takes a few days of discussion. That's not productive for policy development.
  • Find a way to truly create a "core" part of the policy and a modular/serviceable approach to handle additional policies. The idea of the contrib/ repository was like that, but failed to live up to its expectations: the number of people who have commit access to the contrib is almost the same as to the core, a few exceptions notwithstanding, and whenever policies are added to contrib they often require changes on the core as well. Perhaps even support overlay-type approaches to policies so that intermediate policies can be "staged" and tested by a larger audience before they are vetted into the upstream reference policy.
  • Settle on how to deal with networking controls. My suggestion would be to immediately support the TCP/UDP ports as assigned by IANA (or another set of sources) so that additional policies do not need to wait for the base policy to support the ports. Or find and support a way for contributions to declare the port types themselves (we probably need to focus on CIL for this).
  • Document "best practices" on policy development where certain types of policies are documented in more detail. For instance, desktop application profiles, networked daemons, user roles, etc. These best practices should not be mandatory and should in fact support a broad set of privilege isolation. With the latter, I mean that there are policies who cover an entire category of systems (init systems, web servers), a single software package or even the sub-commands and sub-daemons of that package. It would surprise me if this can't be supported better out-of-the-box (as in, through a well thought-through base policy framework and styleguide).

I believe that this might create a more active community surrounding policy development.


Comments

To comment as a guest, use "Or sign up with disqus" and then select the "I'd rather post as guest" option.

comments powered by Disqus