From: sven.vermeulen@siphos.be (Sven Vermeulen)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:33:38 +0100
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH/RFC v3] Introduce xdg types
In-Reply-To: <4EC17B88.1040006@tresys.com>
References: <20111013140614.GA3116@siphos.be>
	<20111113203317.GA17650@siphos.be> <4EC17B88.1040006@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <20111115073337.GA28333@siphos.be>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 03:35:20PM -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> > (1.) Enhance userdom_user_home_dir_filetrans with a fourth argument
> >      (filename) and use that in its filetrans_pattern() call
> > (2.) Enhance xdg.if with the xdg_*_home_filetrans statements that accomplish
> >      something like 
> >        userdom_user_home_dir_filetrans($1, xdg_cache_home_t, dir, ".cache")
> >      for the xdg_cache_home_filetrans (others very related)
> 
> These two are fine.  I've attached my working patch for interfaces with optional
> parameters to support name filetrans.  I'm trying to decide (with CIL in mind)
> if we really want interfaces with optional parameters.

As opposed to different interface names? Like using a _named_filetrans:
userdom_user_home_dir_filetrans versus 
userdom_user_home_dir_named_filetrans (just a hypothetical example) ?

I'm okay with either. If you were to allow optional parameters, you probably
will end up with at most one optional parameter (if you have two, how would
you allow having the second one set but not the first).

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen