From: cpebenito@tresys.com (Christopher J. PeBenito)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 09:57:56 -0400
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH/RFC v3] Introduce xdg types
In-Reply-To: <20120501073122.GC32060@siphos.be>
References: <20111013140614.GA3116@siphos.be>
	<20111113203317.GA17650@siphos.be> <4EC17B88.1040006@tresys.com>
	<20120501073122.GC32060@siphos.be>
Message-ID: <4FABC964.6050204@tresys.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 05/01/12 03:31, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> 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?

Yes.  I merged it.

-- 
Chris PeBenito
Tresys Technology, LLC
www.tresys.com | oss.tresys.com