Re: [PATCH] libselinux: add support for /contexts/postgresql_contexts

[KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>]

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?

The purpose of $1_sepgsql_proc_t is to avoid unconfined domain
to invoke user defined function (may be malicious one) without
checking its safeness.

Thanks,
-- 
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>

--
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.