Re: [sepgsql 1/3] add name qualified creation label

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Based on KaiGai's analysis, it seems to me that there is no serious
> problem here in terms of versioning, and as this patch represents a
> small but useful step forward in our support for SELinux integration,
> I'd like to go ahead and push it.
>
> Are there serious objections to that course of action?

Sounds like not, but when I ran the sepgsql regression tests with this
applied, they failed in the following way:

*** /home/rhaas/pgsql/contrib/sepgsql/expected/label.out
2013-03-28 10:49:26.513998274 -0400
--- /home/rhaas/pgsql/contrib/sepgsql/results/label.out 2013-03-28
10:50:50.818996744 -0400
***************
*** 95,106 ****  column  | t3.tableoid | unconfined_u:object_r:user_sepgsql_table_t:s0  column  | t4.n        |
unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0 column  | t4.m        | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0
 
!  column  | t4.ctid     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_sysobj_t:s0
!  column  | t4.xmin     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_sysobj_t:s0
!  column  | t4.cmin     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_sysobj_t:s0
!  column  | t4.xmax     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_sysobj_t:s0
!  column  | t4.cmax     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_sysobj_t:s0
!  column  | t4.tableoid | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_sysobj_t:s0 (16 rows)
 --
--- 95,106 ----  column  | t3.tableoid | unconfined_u:object_r:user_sepgsql_table_t:s0  column  | t4.n        |
unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0 column  | t4.m        | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0
 
!  column  | t4.ctid     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0
!  column  | t4.xmin     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0
!  column  | t4.cmin     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0
!  column  | t4.xmax     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0
!  column  | t4.cmax     | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0
!  column  | t4.tableoid | unconfined_u:object_r:sepgsql_table_t:s0 (16 rows)
 --

Some trivial rebasing appears needed as well.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company