From: dominick.grift@gmail.com (grift)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:35:03 +0100
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH 3/3] Implement X Desktop Group
In-Reply-To: <50C17637.6040801@tresys.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>
	<50C17637.6040801@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <1355229303.1797.115.camel@localhost>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 23:53 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> 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.
> 

Agreed on the point above

Another different point with regard to the actual XDG types. Would you
oppose a separate policy module called xdg?

I prefer that over using xserver policy module

My concern is mainly because of the xdg runtime dir. It is not directly
related to xserver.

If we use a separate policy module for the xdg types then we have a
little insurance that we do not run into any unneeded dependencies in
the future.