From: cpebenito@tresys.com (Christopher J. PeBenito)
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:09:01 -0500
Subject: [refpolicy] Interfaces in refpolicy.
In-Reply-To: <50EADFDB.5040507@redhat.com>
References: <50EADFDB.5040507@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <50EAE50D.4070409@tresys.com>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On 01/07/13 09:46, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> We were have a side talk between Miroslav, Dominick and me about interfaces.
> 
> Dominick has merged lots of new policy from Fedora in to the contrib directory
> of refpolicy but he has been only including the interfaces that are actually
> used.  This has been the traditional way Chris has accepted interfaces into
> the upstream project.  (Other then _admin and _domtrans).  This is causing
> Miroslav problems merging in the lastest upstream back into Fedora, since
> Fedora has many interfaces defined that other domains are not currently using.
> 
> I believe that we should have a standard that each file type defined in a policy.
> 
> For example
> 
> getattr_dir
> read_dir
> getattr_file
> read_file
> rw_inherited_file
> manage_file

I thought that we had agreed that doing this was generally acceptable years ago?  That being said, I don't think these make sense for /all/ file types.  e.g. there should be no user_home_dir_t files.  Similarly, a different set would apply for device nodes.

> The current mechanism where we don't have a comprehensive list can cause two
> problems for policy writers.

If you want a pretty comprehensive list, the policy pattern macros would be a good place to start creating one, IMO.  We don't have to make corresponding interfaces of all of those, but they do have the correct access concepts and verbs to use in the interface names.

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