From: guido@trentalancia.com (Guido Trentalancia)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:18:57 +0100
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH/RFC 0/19]: patch set to update the git
 reference policy
In-Reply-To: <4D471319.2000907@tresys.com>
References: <1295397630.3377.10.camel@tesla.lan> <4D383627.60804@tresys.com>
	<1295544776.4702.16.camel@tesla.lan>  <4D397E26.4090904@tresys.com>
	<1295829820.3862.59.camel@tesla.lan>  <4D471319.2000907@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <1296508737.18286.54.camel@tesla.lan>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

Welcome back Christopher and thanks for your kind message of
acknowledgement.

On Mon, 31/01/2011 at 14.52 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On 1/23/2011 7:43 PM, Guido Trentalancia wrote:
> I didn't look at all of the patches in deep detail, as Dominick gave you 
> some excellent feedback while I was gone last week.

Yes, Dominick is providing substantial contribution to the work being
discussed in the form of excellent feedback and very valuable
suggestions.

> One thing I want to clarify for each of the actual patches you need:
> 
> * a better subject: "patch set to update the git reference policy" isn't 
> very informative.

Then, it would probably be impossible to submit a patch set at all. We
will just have many individual, separate patches. Because the whole
patch set aims to tackle very different issues in many different places
that it would probably be impossible to summarize everything in the
subject.

> * a detailed description of what the patch does.

Sure. It will be done.

> This will help facilitate review of the patches, and will help us 
> understand the details.

In general, the set of patches is the result of testing refpolicy on a
very recent generic Linux installation. It aims to fix generic issues
with a few essential modules while trying to use the latest refpolicy on
a recent unbranded Linux installation.

There is a particular issue that is awaiting your direction. Could you
please have a look at the dbus_chat/dbus_send (bi-directional versus
uni-directional "send_msg" permission in the context of DBus). For
example, message thread [8/19] timestamped Thu 27 Jan 2011 01:37:12
+0100, Thu 27 Jan 2011 10:16:25 +0100.

Another very interesting issue is in the same thread [8/19] with
timestamp Fri 28 Jan 2011 18:01:43 +0100 (xdg configuration files, both
of us were trying to get some consensus on the need to have a new
label).

Yet another interesting issue is again in thread [8/19] with timestamp
Sat 29 Jan 2011 09:31:33 +0100 (need for a new module to accommodate
system-tools-backends and inconclusive speculations on optional_policy
expansion).

Kind regards,

Guido