Re: [libvirt] Thoughts on svirt configuration files.

Currently we do not want to hard code virtual image names into libvirt, so libvirt and virtual-manager can use libselinux to get the default image label and process label. svirt_t and svirt_image_t. The idea was one policy writer might want his virtual images labeled differently than another. One problem with this is I added to interfaces one for the domain, and one for the image label. Now we realize we have other images. We have process Label - svirt_t:MCS Exclusive RW Image - svirt_image_t:MCS Shared RW Image - svirt_image_t:s0 Read Only Image - virt_content_t:s0 So I am suggesting that we remove the virtual_image_context file and allowing policy writers to define context in the virtual_domain_context files but have multiple records and multiple fields. Something like a space separated list where each field corresponds to above. system_u:system_r:svirt_t:s0 system_u:object_r:svirt_image_t:s0 system_u:object_r:svirt_image_t:s0 system_u:object_r:virt_content_t:s0 Then you could add optional types with similar fields system_u:system_r:svirt_nonet_t:s0 system_u:object_r:svirt_image_t:s0 system_u:object_r:svirt_image_t:s0 system_u:object_r:virt_content_t:s0

Since SELinux just returns a path, the virt team could choose the format of the file if a space separated list is not addequate. (xml?) Name Value Pairs? Policy writers would have to enter the format that is chosen.