From: dwalsh@redhat.com (Daniel J Walsh)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:06:12 -0500
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH 3/3] Implement X Desktop Group
In-Reply-To: <1354294882.12168.11.camel@localhost>
References: <1352116515-21046-1-git-send-email-dominick.grift@gmail.com>
	<1352116515-21046-4-git-send-email-dominick.grift@gmail.com>
	<1354194543.20999.3.camel@localhost> <50B76876.3010305@tresys.com>
	<1354198592.20999.5.camel@localhost> <50B8C429.3090901@tresys.com>
	<1354294882.12168.11.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <50B911B4.4020708@redhat.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/30/2012 12:01 PM, grift wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-30 at 09:35 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>> On 11/29/12 09:16, grift wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 08:51 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/12 08:09, grift wrote:
>>>>> Are we ready to make a decision yet with regard to the two
>>>>> outstanding issues?
>>>>> 
>>>>> - best type names? (my preference user_data_home_t,
>>>>> user_config_home_t, user_cache_home_t)
>>>> 
>>>> replace user with xdg, e.g. xdg_config_home_t.
>>>> 
>>>>> - should be label ~/.local/share with the xdg data home type or
>>>>> ~/.local ( my preference ~/.local/share)
>>>>> 
>>>>> But i will go with whatever in the end
>>>> 
>>>> Here's another option to consider:
>>>> 
>>>> $HOME/.local  -d  gen_context(system_u:object_r:xdg_local_home_t,s0) 
>>>> $HOME/.local/share(/.*)?
>>>> gen_context(system_u:object_r:xdg_data_home_t,s0)
>>>> 
>>>> and then treat xdg_local_home_t similar to user_home_dir_t and
>>>> filetrans everything under it.  Then the named filetrans for
>>>> ~/.local/share will work right on top of any of the other random dirs
>>>> that pop up under there.
>>> 
>>> I understand your reasoning but i am not confident about the type name 
>>> "xdg_local_home_t" and i am also not confident that this type should
>>> be declared in the xserver policy module
>>> 
>>> how about we use local_home_t and declare it in the userdomain module?
>> 
>> I'm unclear why you disagree.  It seems to make sense that 1. this
>> standard is defined by the X desktop group, so xdg doesn't seem so bad to
>> have in the type name.  2. I don't think it makes sense in userdomain
>> because this standard applies to X desktops, so if you don't have an
>> xserver, theres no need for these definitions.
>> 
> 
> As far as i can see ~/.local is not part of the X desktop group although it
> depends on it for ~/.local/share (data dir)
> 
> userdomain might indeed not be a optimal alternative place to declare a 
> type for .local but i am not confident that xserver is either.
> 
> What i understand is , is that ~/.local is "a place where users can install
> apps with a prefix inside $HOME"
> 
> I imagine one could have a headless server without X or the xserver policy
> and still use ~/.local to "install apps with a prefix inside $HOME"
> 
> But that is my view and i do not mind going your way. It is not such a big
> deal.
> 
> My patch v3 declares xdg_local_home_t is xserver module
> 
> _______________________________________________ refpolicy mailing list 
> refpolicy at oss.tresys.com http://oss.tresys.com/mailman/listinfo/refpolicy
> 
python uses ~/.local


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlC5EbQACgkQrlYvE4MpobMxagCgz1940l6WUbb5Aq61IkiZM20U
ACUAoJgCkYldMwTkAyPr5LNA+Jhsd5sP
=vMke
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----