From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dominick.grift@gmail.com (Dominick Grift) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:51:40 +0100 Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH/RFC] Reintroduce httpd_user_content_type and httpd_user_script_exec_type attributes In-Reply-To: <20130211193354.GA12406@siphos.be> References: <20130211190233.GA11417@siphos.be> <1360611019.2559.22.camel@d30> <20130211193354.GA12406@siphos.be> Message-ID: <1360612300.2559.28.camel@d30> To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 20:33 +0100, Sven Vermeulen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 08:30:19PM +0100, Dominick Grift wrote: > > > The httpd_user_content_type and httpd_user_script_exec_type attributes were > > > erroneously removed a while ago, but while trying to reintroduce them I did > > > notice that they were removed because there was no way for users to actually > > > use them (or I'm completely misreading the policy code). > > > > I still do not understand the purpose of this. Is there some actual need > > for this? I deprecated the interface because it was unused and i could > > not see a convincing need for it to exist. > > > > Can you enlighten me? What issue are you facing? Who, other than the > > user needs to be able to manage user content/script dirs, files and > > symlinks? > > I'll have to ask Christopher, I made this patch as a result of our previous > thread on this matter (where I initially changed a deprecated function to > reflect the removal of these types): > > http://oss.tresys.com/pipermail/refpolicy/2013-January/006255.html > > Wkr, > Sven Vermeulen I read that thread and do you have a actual case where useradd creates ~/public_html? I do not see a need for useradd to be able to create that But even so then it still needs no access to httpd_user_content files and symlinks or any httpd_user_script_exec_t content Can you not just create a httpd_manage_user_content_dirs, with something like the following: userdom_rw_user_home_dirs($1) allow $1 httpd_user_content_t:dir manage_dir_perms;