Subject: Re: read_file_perms vs mmap_read_file_perms
To:     Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>,
        "selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org" 
        <selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1938152.zeI3LBqMHI@liv>
From:   Chris PeBenito <pebenito@ieee.org>
Message-ID: <402f8da9-de40-3a9d-f767-324bc6f0e60b@ieee.org>
Date:   Sat, 9 Feb 2019 09:07:22 -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: <1938152.zeI3LBqMHI@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 2/9/19 5:25 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
> define(`read_file_perms',`{ getattr open read lock ioctl }')
> define(`mmap_read_file_perms',`{ getattr open map read ioctl }')
> 
> I think that the general expectation would be that mmap_read_file_perms is a
> superset of read_file_perms.  Is there any reason why mmap_read_file_perms
> doesn't include lock permission?  If not I think we should add it to avoid
> surprises.

You are correct, it should be a proper superset.  However, my preference 
would be to go the other way and eliminate lock from read_file_perms, 
which is what I'm trying to do with mmap_read_file_perms not being a 
proper superset.

-- 
Chris PeBenito