From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: guido@trentalancia.com (Guido Trentalancia)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:16:05 +0100
Subject: [refpolicy] optional_policy blocks
In-Reply-To: <4D35AA8C.5050001@gmail.com>
References: <1295361554.3083.8.camel@tesla.lan> <4D35AA8C.5050001@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1295367365.3083.27.camel@tesla.lan>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

Hello again !

On Tue, 18/01/2011 at 15.58 +0100, Dominick Grift wrote:
> On 01/18/2011 03:39 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> > Hello !
> > 
> > I am trying to build and test a modified version of the git reference
> > policy. It is being built of type MCS and not monolithic.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, it seems that for some reason all of the
> > "optional_policy" blocks that are often used in TE files are not being
> > compiled in.
> 
> Because optional policy does not apply to monolithic policy. All modules
> are in a single module (the base module), thus all dependencies are
> installed.
> 
> optional policy is used for modular policy where many modules reside in
> their own policy module. This enabled you to add and remove specific
> modules and introduces the issue of dependencies.
> 
> the optional policy (policy in optional policy blocks) say's if this
> policy is available then use it and if its not available then ignore it.

This is my understanding. optional_policy() is a macro. Such macro
allows to optionally call one or more interfaces depending on whether a
module is included in the policy.

The optional_policy() support macro implements this capability
differently depending on whether a monolithic policy, base module, or
loadable module is being built.

However, the concept from a policy writer's perspective is the same. If
the module is being included in the build process, then the interfaces
defined within the optional_policy block are also called.

I believe that for modular policies it expands to an "optional" block,
while for monolithic policies it expands to an "ifdef" block, see for
example:

http://selinuxproject.org/page/NB_RefPolicy#optional_policy_Macro

http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/list-archive/0601/thread_body117.shtml

In any case, from the point of view of this discussion it doesn't really
matter whether the policy being built is monolithic or modular. The
point is that apparently the macro does not get expanded and built. I am
doing: make install-src ; make conf ; make policy ; make install ; make
load as described in the INSTALL file for the reference policy. And
again, as already mentioned, the relative modules appears to be built
and loaded (they appear in policy/modules.conf and also in the output of
semodule -l).

What am I missing then ?

> Sounds strange indeed. Are you sure it is not including any of the
> policy in optional policy block or just some?
>
> If it is just incidental then it could be an error in the interface in
> the optional policy block.
>
> If this really applies to all optional policy then i guess something
> else is going on.

Very strange. I have not checked every optional block in the policy. For
sure, it is not including those that I have created.

If there was an error in the interface definition, then the compiler
would complain !

It might well be the case that none of the optional_policy() blocks got
compiled in....

Regards,

Guido