From: sven.vermeulen@siphos.be (Sven Vermeulen)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 09:31:22 +0200
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: <20120501073122.GC32060@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.

Got your mind settled yet?

I noticed that the filetrans_pattern() definition supports the fifth
argument (as an optional parameter). Is it okay if we apply your patch
(except for the filetrans_pattern() part) and continue from there?

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen