[refpolicy] Interface naming question for a filetrans

[sven.vermeulen@siphos.be (Sven Vermeulen)]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 08:05:38AM -0400, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On 07/01/12 05:29, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > Let's say I am in the need for two interfaces.
> > 
> > One would do:
> >   files_pid_filetrans($1, udev_rules_t, dir, $2)
> > the other one
> >   filetrans_pattern($1, udev_var_run_t, udev_rules_t, dir, $2)
> > 
> > I'm a bit in doubt about what to call the interfaces.
[...]
> > So, what's the take on this?
> 
> The general idea of the naming is modulename_fromtype_filetrans[_totype],
> where fromtype and totype are the more abstract names for the types.  But
> it sounds like the above situation is messy.  Would you further describe
> what you're trying to do (raw rules would be fine)?

One is:

filetrans_pattern($1, var_run_t, udev_rules_t, dir, $2)

The other one:

filetrans_pattern($1, udev_var_run_t, udev_rules_t, dir, $2)

which is about as raw as possible without loosing the idea ;-) For instance,
an init script creates "rules.d" in "/run/udev", so we need the second one.
But udevadm creates "rules" in "/var/run" which needs the first one.
  filetrans_pattern(initrc_t, udev_var_run_t, udev_rules_t, dir, "rules.d")
  filetrans_pattern(udev_t, var_run_t, udev_rules_t, dir, "rules")


The problem with the naming is that, in this particular case, _fromtype_ is
dubious. By using "_pids_" it can either refer to the generic one
(var_run_t) or to the subtype of the module (udev_var_run_t).

I might work around the issue by trying to work around the question itself
(why does udevadm want to create a "rules" in /var/run, shouldn't it use
/var/run/udev) but I think that's a bit besides the point right now, as
there might be different situations where we have this case.

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen