Re: One question about security label command

2015-05-01 7:40 GMT+09:00 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>> > > The idea of making the regression test entirely independent of the
>> > > system's policy would presumably solve this problem, so I'd kind of
>> > > like to see progress on that front.
>> >
>> > Apologies, I guess it wasn't clear, but that's what I was intending to
>> > advocate.
>> >
>> OK, I'll try to design a new regression test policy that is independent
>> from the system's policy assumption, like unconfined domain.
>>
>> Please give me time for this work.
>
> Any progress here?
>
Not done.
The last version I rebuild had a trouble on user/role transition from
unconfined_u/unconfined_r to the self defined user/role...
So, I'm trying to keep the user/role field (that is not redefined for
several years) but to define self domain/types (that have been
redefined multiple times) for the regression test at this moment.

Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>