[refpolicy3 RFC] Drop suffixes?

[refpolicy3 RFC] Drop suffixes?

[Chris PeBenito]

I am considering dropping the suffixes from users, roles, and types. 
init_t would become init, user_r would become user, etc.

Thoughts?

-- 
Chris PeBenito

Re: [refpolicy3 RFC] Drop suffixes?

[Dominick Grift]

Chris PeBenito <chpebeni@linux.microsoft.com> writes:

> I am considering dropping the suffixes from users, roles, and
> types. init_t would become init, user_r would become user, etc.
>
> Thoughts?

One thought I have is: might this in some cases conflict with keywords?
i.e. is it technically possible?

If the suffixes have no real use then I would probably drop them, provided
that it is technically possible.

I use suffixes in my policy but they are used for templates and they are
generally also more descriptive.

-- 
gpg --locate-keys dominick.grift@defensec.nl
Key fingerprint = FCD2 3660 5D6B 9D27 7FC6  E0FF DA7E 521F 10F6 4098
Dominick Grift

Re: [refpolicy3 RFC] Drop suffixes?

[Russell Coker]

On Saturday, 25 March 2023 05:10:10 AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> I am considering dropping the suffixes from users, roles, and types.
> init_t would become init, user_r would become user, etc.

Even when the syntax prevents the compiler from being confused there is a 
benefit to avoiding user confusion.  So having user_r:user_t change to 
user:user would be bad IMHO.

22 years ago this might have been justified by reducing RAM use or something 
but that doesn't apply now.  What's the motivation for this?

-- 
My Main Blog         http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog    http://doc.coker.com.au/

Re: [refpolicy3 RFC] Drop suffixes?

[Chris PeBenito]

On 3/25/2023 05:15, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 March 2023 05:10:10 AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
>> I am considering dropping the suffixes from users, roles, and types.
>> init_t would become init, user_r would become user, etc.
> 
> Even when the syntax prevents the compiler from being confused there is a
> benefit to avoiding user confusion.  So having user_r:user_t change to
> user:user would be bad IMHO.
> 
> 22 years ago this might have been justified by reducing RAM use or something
> but that doesn't apply now.  What's the motivation for this?

Since refpolicy3 is a major change, I've been reexamining past 
decisions.  Now is the time to make significant changes.

-- 
Chris PeBenito