From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: cpebenito@tresys.com (Christopher J. PeBenito)
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 14:26:39 -0400
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH/RFC 2/2] Add minidlna policy
In-Reply-To: <1367439287.452.23.camel@d30>
References: <20130501183657.GA25116@siphos.be>
	<20130501183845.GC25116@siphos.be> <1367435529.452.19.camel@d30>
	<20130501200901.GA27004@siphos.be> <1367439287.452.23.camel@d30>
Message-ID: <5182AFDF.5090007@tresys.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 05/01/13 16:14, Dominick Grift wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 22:09 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 09:12:09PM +0200, Dominick Grift wrote:
>>>> +/etc/minidlna\.conf	--	gen_context(system_u:object_r:minidlna_etc_t,s0)
>>>
>>> Can we use type minidlna_conf_t instead for consistency?
>>
>> Ok... but in the contrib/ folder, I find more _etc_t definitions than
>> _conf_t ones:
>>
>> $ grep '^type .*_conf_t' *.te | wc -l
>> 36
>> $ grep '^type .*_etc_t' *.te | wc -l
>> 89
> 
> Hmm, i see. I prefer conf in light of self-documenting policy

I prefer it too, but I'd say its not a hard requirement.  I think it makes sense, since it ties the name to the concept of a configuration file, rather than a path, which is what _etc_t does.  /etc does not consist of only config files.

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