Security Enhanced Linux
What's New
Frequently Asked Questions
Background
Documents
License
Download
Participating
Mail List
Archives
Remaining Work
Contributors
Related Work
Press Releases
Information Assurance Research
NIARL In-house Research Areas
Mathematical Sciences Program
Sabbaticals
Computer & Information Sciences Research
Technology Transfer
Advanced Computing
Advanced Mathematics
Communications & Networking
Information Processing
Microelectronics
Other Technologies
Technology Fact Sheets
Publications
Related Links
|
SELinux Mailing ListRe: [RFC & PATCH] inherited type definition.
From: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai_at_kaigai.gr.jp>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:26:15 +0900
> 1) Should the child domain inherit all rules that involved the parent In my patch, child domain/type inherit all rules including target/object and area of ROLE clearly, not only source/subject. (Those source/target is also included in TYPE_TRANSITION statements.) Any permissions to parent means permissions to child/descendant concurrently.
> 2) Should the child domain inherit rules between the parent and the When parent has permissions to himself, child also has permissions to his parent and himself(child). In my patch, to inherit type/domain always expand descendant's permissions. I intend to define a child type/domain which has tiny larger permission than own parent low cost. I think definition of reductive permission child-type/domain is the next action assignment. If child does not need a part of the parent's permissions, those should be revoked by DENY statement for example.
> 3) What should happen with rules between the parent and itself? It
It's a bit wrong.
"allow parent_t self:process sigkill;" is unrolled as follows: "allow parent_t parent_t:process sigkill;" "allow parent_t child_t:process sigkill;" "allow child_t child_t:process sigkill;" child_t is dealt as self-domain from parent_t's viewpoint. But parent_t is not dealed as self-domain from child_t's viewpoint, because child_t has divaricated from parent_t yet. This is my opinion, others may have different aspect to 'self'. We should collect up how to deal 'self' on type-inheritance-tree, I think.
> 4) What should happen with transition rules that involve the parent? In parent_t/child_t shares same transition rule for same exec type. Maybe, any kind of overriding semantics is necessary. Thanks. -- DO NOTHING IS THE WORST POLICY. KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.Received on Mon 14 Mar 2005 - 12:31:26 EST |
|
Date Posted: Jan 15, 2009 | Last Modified: Jan 15, 2009 | Last Reviewed: Jan 15, 2009 |