From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: guido@trentalancia.com (Guido Trentalancia)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 19:05:37 +0200
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH 2/3] user access to DOS files
In-Reply-To: <5048CFD9.2080408@trentalancia.com>
References: <1346793669-26282-1-git-send-email-bigon@debian.org>
	<1346793669-26282-2-git-send-email-bigon@debian.org>
	<20120906162401.79ccd07b@eldamar.bigon.be>
	<5048CFD9.2080408@trentalancia.com>
Message-ID: <5048D7E1.3080200@trentalancia.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 06/09/2012 18:31, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> On 06/09/2012 16:24, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>> Le Tue,  4 Sep 2012 23:21:08 +0200,
>> Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org> a ?crit :
>>
>>> +	tunable_policy(`user_manage_dos_files',`
>>> +		fs_manage_dos_dirs($1_t)
>>> +		fs_manage_dos_files($1_t)
>>> +	')
>>> +
>>>    ')
>>
>> I was reading the code further and isn't the proposed patch actually
>> redundant with user_rw_noexattrfile?
>>
>>           tunable_policy(`user_rw_noexattrfile',`
>>                   fs_manage_noxattr_fs_files($1_t)
>>                   fs_manage_noxattr_fs_dirs($1_t)
>>           ',`
>>                   fs_read_noxattr_fs_files($1_t)
>>           ')
>>
>> So shouldn't the proposed patch simply be dropped?
>
> Fortunately, it has not been applied, I think. And if it causes problems
> and degradation of current policy, as you now recognize, why did you
> post it in the first place then ?

If you want to have some fun with filesystem-related things, then a very 
light supplemental patch might be needed for latest versions of the 
ntfs-3g project, as far as I remember from testing. It would need to 
have FUSE support, but optionalized (through good use of tunable policy 
which means do not allow by default the loading of fuse.ko kernel module 
and a few other related permissions that are only needed in FUSE 
supporting versions).