Re: [ SEMANAGE ] Add a few direct dbases to handle

[Ivan Gyurdiev <ivg2@cornell.edu>]

>> To put it another way.. this "direct-only" part does exist, but it's 
>> hidden away.
>> (into dbase_config_t -> dbase), which is an interface type. Then the 
>> method table
>> (dbase_config_t->dtable) specifies how to access it, which is 
>> equivalent to your
>> function table for modules.
>
> The direct-only part needs to exist. The handle is becoming very 
> cluttered with stuff that should not be there.
You don't seem to realize that those databases need to exist, whether or 
not you're using the policy server, or the direct api.
This is just another way to switch between the two.
>>
>> In fact, I want to convert your modules functions into a database 
>> too, but
>> I haven't gotten to it yet, and this isn't high priority.
>>
> Why? This doesn't solve any problem.
For consistency, if nothing else... I think there are benefits to hiding 
data collections under a uniform interface, but I don't want to get into 
that right now - I sent Karl a long email some time ago. I know he's not 
convinced, but it's just my pet project.

Like I said, I won't be doing that yet.

>> So...basically I have multiple backend-specific portions, distributed 
>> by functionality,
>> rather than putting it all into one big table of function pointers 
>> that aren't related.
>
> the backend-specific portions should be hidden in a backend specific 
> handle. This means that semanage_handle_t does *not* contain *any* 
> backend specific information, all backend specific information would 
> be in semanage_direct_handle, semanage_ps_handle, and so on.
The handle does not contain anything backend specific currently. Please 
give an example of something backend specific.

--
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.