Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: systemd_user_runtime_dir_t
To:     Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>,
        selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
References: <2379388.043O1XupSG@liv>
From:   Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b4ec6d11-1f0d-1f3c-7ee9-d1f9fd99ce1b@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:43:32 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2379388.043O1XupSG@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 8.4.2020 5.19, Russell Coker wrote:
> What kind of name is that?  It's a poor choice of name by systemd upstream and
> I don't think we are obliged to copy that bad idea.

The name is related to environment variable XDG_USER_RUNTIME_DIR, which 
is not systemd specific construct:

https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html

So if the name should change, xdg_user_runtime_dir_t might be more 
accurate. On the other hand, the current name reflects that it's 
specifically the service supplied by systemd called 
"runtime-user-dir@.service" which provides the directory. If the 
provider would be something other (/etc/init.d/elogind-mkuserdir), it 
could be equally accurate to label the directory with something else. 
Though if the result (temporary directory owned by the user) is no 
different in either case from the point of view of SELinux policy, why 
change?

-Topi