From: cpebenito@tresys.com (Christopher J. PeBenito)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 23:53:11 -0500
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH 3/3] Implement X Desktop Group
In-Reply-To: <50B911B4.4020708@redhat.com>
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> <50B911B4.4020708@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <50C17637.6040801@tresys.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 11/30/2012 3:06 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> -----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
>>
>>
> python uses ~/.local

Yuck.  Well I guess that makes local_home_t make sense for ~/.local and xdg_data_home_t for ~/.local/data.  Then local_home_t could be declared in userdomain.

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