Subject: Re:
	[PATCH]	libselinux:	add	support	for	/contexts/postgresql_contexts
From: "Christopher J. PeBenito" <cpebenito@tresys.com>
To: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>
Cc: Eamon Walsh <ewalsh@tycho.nsa.gov>, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
In-Reply-To: <485B52D2.6020101@ak.jp.nec.com>
References: <483A9137.5050509@ak.jp.nec.com>
	 <1211913263.19360.72.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
	 <1211914557.5008.72.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
	 <483C6BEA.8040101@tycho.nsa.gov>
	 <1211981040.5008.105.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
	 <483EF06E.7080406@tycho.nsa.gov> <1212085228.31546.5.camel@gorn>
	 <483F48AB.7030406@tycho.nsa.gov> <1212150456.31546.16.camel@gorn>
	 <4843CB24.1040000@ak.jp.nec.com>  <48442E7E.9050303@tycho.nsa.gov>
	 <1212431955.31546.94.camel@gorn>  <48451C0C.6060303@ak.jp.nec.com>
	 <1212496632.31546.105.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
	 <4846142F.8090100@ak.jp.nec.com>
	 <1212589930.4140.16.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com>
	 <48473ECC.6020501@ak.jp.nec.com>
	 <1212672916.15752.7.camel@gorn.pebenito.net> <4848C96F.50201@ak.jp.nec.com>
				 <484C9E55.30702@ak.jp.nec.com> <1213121355.27496.23.camel@gorn>
			  <48524E79.6000508@ak.jp.nec.com> <1213364255.11146.18.camel@gorn>
		  <4858B106.206@ak.jp.nec.com> <1213796498.11146.120.camel@gorn>
	  <485B52D2.6020101@ak.jp.nec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:35:08 -0400
Message-Id: <1214224508.11146.206.camel@gorn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov

On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 15:48 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 15:53 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> >> Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> >>>>> 2. the stored procedure type names have been in the back of my mind for
> >>>>> long time but I couldn't come up with a good naming scheme.  This
> >>>>> especially bugged me for the sepgsql_trusted_domain_t and
> >>>>> sepgsql_trusted_proc_t.  Why not just go with what we do with regular
> >>>>> domains and executables: sepgsql_trusted_proc_t and
> >>>>> sepgsql_trusted_proc_exec_t?
> >>>> I don't have a clear reason for the naming of them.
> >>>> sepgsql_trusted_proc_t and sepgsql_trusted_proc_exec_t are more suitable
> >>>> for the purpose, I also think.
> >>> It seems that we should also rename $1_sepgsql_proc_t for consistency.
> >> Sorry for late reply.
> >>
> >> At first, $1_sepgsql_proc_t lost the term of "trusted", so its name
> >> does not shows its purpose.
> > 
> > No, I mean having a $1_sepgsql_proc_t and $1_sepgsql_proc_exec_t.
> 
> Do you intend the following domain transition?
>   user_t + user_sepgsql_proc_exec_t -> user_sepgsql_proc_t
> 
> Is there any reason why users should not invoke their functions
> without domain transition?

I don't think we need a transition.  Mainly I think the procedure should
be $1_sepgsql_proc_exec_t so there is naming consistency for stored
procedures.

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
(410) 290-1411 x150


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.