Re: [RFC & PATCH] inherited type definition.

Hello,

>>I think that the required skill for tracking the security policy with
>>inherited type is same as one for the security policy writen with
>>attributes.
>
>
> When inspecting policy to determine it's operation you can see a list of
> attributes on a type declaration and know that each applies to the type.
>
> With inheritance as you describe you have exclusion rules such that you don't
> necessarily know that domain user_foo_t can access bar_t just because user_t
> can access bar_t and user_foo_t inherits.

Is it same as attributes work ?
A permission is often granted implicitly via attributes. We have to check a type declaration and attached attributes, when a permission is granted to types/attributes.

When a type is declared with attribute, we have to check this. When a type is declared with parent type, we have to check this. Both are essentially same, I think.

> If we want to make a change to the inheritance it doesn't change the access
> granted to just one domain or type but instead it operates on an unknown
> number of domains/types.

Sorry, what does mean 'make a change to the inheritance' ?

If it means that changing the permission attached to parent-type make effects to some child-types, 'unknown number of domains/types' is over expression. A permission granted via parent-type is limited to child-types explicitly declared as an inherited type.

If it means that changing the relationship between parent and child make effects to some child-types, it is fact that we have to grant all necessary permissions to child-types from scrach. But I think it's redundant and needlessness. This situation is similar trying to declare a new file-type without file_type attributes.

>>Does the example of user_t/user_r/user_ssh_t mean 'inherited domain'?
>>It has not been a significant issue yet, I think.
>>I think it's enough benefit to create a new type which can be accessed from
>>multi domains. (e.g Apache & FTPd shared directory)
>
>
> It does mean inherited domain.
>
> I want to write policy such that someone can load a binary policy module for a
> new user role professor_r which then automatically creates the domain
> professor_foo_t because the base policy has appropriate statements that are
> equivalent in functionality to the macros we currently use in macros/programs
> for such things.

Generally, any methods have strong and weak point. I have no intention to disallow the availability of existing macros. Each methods should be used for own strong point.

Thanks,

-- 
Linux Promotion Center, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>

--
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.