From: dominick.grift@gmail.com (grift)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:00:17 +0100
Subject: [refpolicy] [PATCH 3/3] Implement X Desktop Group
In-Reply-To: <50C743AE.30208@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> <1355229303.1797.115.camel@localhost>
	<50C743AE.30208@tresys.com>
Message-ID: <1355238017.1797.118.camel@localhost>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 09:31 -0500, Christopher J. PeBenito wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 7:35 AM, grift wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I think it depends on the cleanliness of the implementation.  Can you do a partial implementation, say implement the support for one of the types?
> 
yes sure i do not see why not (that is if understand you correctly)

i will in the near future prepare a patch so that you can see what i
have in mind and then you can decide later)

better take our time and make the right decision