From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4346FB32.6020805@cornell.edu> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 18:48:18 -0400 From: Ivan Gyurdiev MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Smalley CC: Joshua Brindle , SELinux-dev@tresys.com, dwalsh@redhat.com, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [ SEMANAGE ] [ SEPOL ] More database work References: <43454A61.8010907@cornell.edu> <1128626875.15836.168.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1128695426.1450.26.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1128700358.1450.39.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1128709856.1450.75.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <4346CE4C.1030201@tresys.com> <1128714852.1450.90.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1128719862.1450.119.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> In-Reply-To: <1128719862.1450.119.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov > (and yes, the interfaces can still change; > this is just a snapshot). > I think this is important, in particular with respect to my functions - I may still change those. I haven't decided if the key structure should play a role in sepol. Some of the user functions may not be needed. > I didn't do anything about handles yet. Note that the interfaces vary > quite a bit in what they take, with some taking sepol_policydb's, others > taking sepol_policy_file's, and others taking sepol_module_package's, > and some taking a combination. Plus Ivan's interfaces, some of which > take sepol_policydb's but others just taking his new record structures. > So it seems like a handle would have to be separated if it is going to > be universal to all of the interfaces. > Hmm, that's true... we should separate the handle. Are there any other uses for a handle, besides debugging settings? -- 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.