[refpolicy] [PATCH 3/3] Implement X Desktop Group

[cpebenito@tresys.com (Christopher J. PeBenito)]

On 11/29/12 09:16, grift wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 08:51 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>> On 11/29/12 08:09, grift wrote:
>>> Are we ready to make a decision yet with regard to the two outstanding
>>> issues?
>>>
>>> - best type names? (my preference user_data_home_t, user_config_home_t,
>>> user_cache_home_t)
>>
>> replace user with xdg, e.g. xdg_config_home_t.
>>
>>> - should be label ~/.local/share with the xdg data home type or ~/.local
>>> ( my preference ~/.local/share)
>>>
>>> But i will go with whatever in the end
>>
>> Here's another option to consider:
>>
>> $HOME/.local  -d  gen_context(system_u:object_r:xdg_local_home_t,s0)
>> $HOME/.local/share(/.*)?    gen_context(system_u:object_r:xdg_data_home_t,s0)
>>
>> and then treat xdg_local_home_t similar to user_home_dir_t and filetrans everything under it.  Then the named filetrans for ~/.local/share will work right on top of any of the other random dirs that pop up under there.
> 
> I understand your reasoning but i am not confident about the type name
> "xdg_local_home_t" and i am also not confident that this type should be
> declared in the xserver policy module
> 
> how about we use local_home_t and declare it in the userdomain module?

I'm unclear why you disagree.  It seems to make sense that 1. this standard is defined by the X desktop group, so xdg doesn't seem so bad to have in the type name.  2. I don't think it makes sense in userdomain because this standard applies to X desktops, so if you don't have an xserver, theres no need for these definitions.

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
www.tresys.com | oss.tresys.com