Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selinux-refpolicy-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Dominick Grift <dominick.grift@defensec.nl>
To:     Chris PeBenito <chpebeni@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     selinux-refpolicy@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [refpolicy3 RFC] Drop suffixes?
References: <c0e600cf-b724-8fa9-fb9e-be847f807a22@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Mar 2023 19:31:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <c0e600cf-b724-8fa9-fb9e-be847f807a22@linux.microsoft.com> (Chris
        PeBenito's message of "Fri, 24 Mar 2023 14:10:10 -0400")
Message-ID: <87zg82atmc.fsf@defensec.nl>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

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