From:   Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
To:     Chris PeBenito <pebenito@ieee.org>
Reply-To: russell@coker.com.au
Cc:     Jason Zaman <jason@perfinion.com>,
        "selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org" 
        <selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s/mozilla/webbrowser/g
Date:   Sun, 13 Jan 2019 11:50:01 +1100
Message-ID: <3656424.1XRo0OdIgc@xev>
In-Reply-To: <9e966272-1e72-c250-bfb6-0f3b8bd07931@ieee.org>
References: <20190112051909.GA7745@xev> <20190112073320.GA40543@baraddur.perfinion.com> <9e966272-1e72-c250-bfb6-0f3b8bd07931@ieee.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sunday, 13 January 2019 6:46:44 AM AEDT Chris PeBenito wrote:
> The chromium policy Jason posted is indeed slimmer than the current
> mozilla policy (see Jason's thread), which would seem to indicate
> keeping them separate.  However, the mozilla policy is so big because
> it's been around for a long time and has built up all of the various
> odds and ends that a browser brings in, which could possibly be missing
> from the chromium policy.
> 
> I am on the fence.  I could see going either way.

One of the things the Mozilla policy has is a domain for plugins while Chrome 
has a domain for a sandbox.  Does Chrome support running plugins in a separate 
process (doesn't seem to but I generally avoid plugins).  There seems to be 
some real functionality difference between the two browsers.

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