From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <485B52D2.6020101@ak.jp.nec.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:48:50 +0900 From: KaiGai Kohei MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Christopher J. PeBenito" CC: Eamon Walsh , Stephen Smalley , selinux@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [PATCH] libselinux: add support for /contexts/postgresql_contexts References: <483A9137.5050509@ak.jp.nec.com> <1211913263.19360.72.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <1211914557.5008.72.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com> <483C6BEA.8040101@tycho.nsa.gov> <1211981040.5008.105.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com> <483EF06E.7080406@tycho.nsa.gov> <1212085228.31546.5.camel@gorn> <483F48AB.7030406@tycho.nsa.gov> <1212150456.31546.16.camel@gorn> <4843CB24.1040000@ak.jp.nec.com> <48442E7E.9050303@tycho.nsa.gov> <1212431955.31546.94.camel@gorn> <48451C0C.6060303@ak.jp.nec.com> <1212496632.31546.105.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com> <4846142F.8090100@ak.jp.nec.com> <1212589930.4140.16.camel@gorn.columbia.tresys.com> <48473ECC.6020501@ak.jp.nec.com> <1212672916.15752.7.camel@gorn.pebenito.net> <4848C96F.50201@ak.jp.nec.com> <484C9E55.30702@ak.jp.nec.com> <1213121355.27496.23.camel@gorn> <48524E79.6000508@ak.jp.nec.com> <1213364255.11146.18.camel@gorn> <4858B106.206@ak.jp.nec.com> <1213796498.11146.120.camel@gorn> In-Reply-To: <1213796498.11146.120.camel@gorn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Sender: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov List-Id: selinux@tycho.nsa.gov 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 -- 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.