> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov [mailto:owner-selinux@tycho.nsa.gov] On
> Behalf Of Tom Mitchell
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:54 PM
> To: SELinux
> Subject: Re: Now that SELinux supports booleans should we replace tunables
> with booleans?
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 09:59:42AM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>
> > Ideas?
>
> The fewer decisions the kernel needs to make the better. i.e. The
> more decisions and analysis that can be make in advance of loading
> policy the better.
>

I'm not certain this is the case. Booleans allow for fine-grained control over policy changes by domains without full policy privileges (see my other recent mail in this thread for more on this). This makes it easier to analyze a policy ahead of time to make certain that it meats your security goals in all configurations.

If you are concerned about performance, I don't think that is a problem either. The conditional support adds minimal overhead that is probably taken care of by the avc cache anyway.

Karl

Karl MacMillan
Tresys Technology
http://www.tresys.com
(410)290-1411 ext 134

>
> --
> T o m M i t c h e l l
> /dev/null the ultimate in secure storage.
>
> --
> 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.

--
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.