Subject: Re: connected_stream_socket_perms
To:     Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>,
        selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
References: <1657648.nfkMHCI95s@liv>
From:   Chris PeBenito <pebenito@ieee.org>
Message-ID: <b6864fa4-70b7-e3b2-b849-58c6a231f51a@ieee.org>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:23:21 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1657648.nfkMHCI95s@liv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 1/10/19 5:51 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
> define(`rw_socket_perms', `{ ioctl read getattr write setattr append bind
> connect getopt setopt shutdown }')
> 
> define(`connected_socket_perms', `{ create ioctl read getattr write setattr
> append bind getopt setopt shutdown }')
> 
> The difference between these 2 is that connected_socket_perms includes create
> while rw_socket_perms has connect.  Why doesn't rw_socket_perms have create?
> Or if we are saying "rw_socket_perms only means reading and writing" then why
> does it have connect?
> 
> Does this all make sense?
> 
> I expect that a lot of policy has been written based on using whichever of
> those macros seems to match an audit2allow rule and vaguely match the concept
> of what someone imagines the program in question is doing.
> 
> Would it make sense to have another macro defined to { ioctl read getattr write
> setattr append bind getopt setopt shutdown } so that there can be a more
> obvious progression of which macro is a superset of which other macro?

Those lines are ancient (2005).  I'm open to reveisions.  I'm definitely 
eager for better clarity and consistency.

-- 
Chris PeBenito