From: dominick.grift@gmail.com (Dominick Grift)
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 12:29:09 +0200
Subject: [refpolicy] Do we need to keep "aliased" interfaces?
In-Reply-To: <20140529165745.GA10882@siphos.be>
References: <20140529165745.GA10882@siphos.be>
Message-ID: <1401445749.6837.8.camel@x220.localdomain>
To: refpolicy@oss.tresys.com
List-Id: refpolicy.oss.tresys.com

On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 18:57 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:

> I really dislike the "all_gconfd" one as, in my opinion, it implies that
> there are multiple gconfd domains "tied" together with some attribute, which
> isn't the case.
> 

I do not understand what you mean.

gconfd_t is aliases to $1_gconfd_t (i suppose) this is so that if a
policy uses the older gconfd_t type that the interfaces still work

It is (i suppose) not the other way around)

I implemented the prefixes for gconfd because gconfd executes gnome
components on behalf of the user. The prefixes allow for confinement of
the desktop.

if you want to see what stuff gconfd runs see:
https://github.com/mypublicrepositories/myloginuser/commit/6466726fca0a391c37ba4ea0aaa27633be9fd98b

If you are going to allow "userdomain" to dbus_chat with all gconfd
domain then that breaks the ability to confine desktop sessions from
that perspective. Becuase userdomain in a core type attribute. It is not
so easy to work around that one.

Not to mention that not all usedomains should be allowed to dbus chat to
gconfd. only unpriv_userdomains (e.g. must have atleast access to GUI
env, must have atleast access to login.

With gnome3, gconfd is pretty much gone. So this is legacy anyways but
still...