On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 15:17 -0500, Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
> Anyway, to get to the point of this email... I originally chose to
> represent MLS data in user/seuser/context objects as a string, rather
> than a structure. That might have been a mistake, so I raise this issue
> again - is a string acceptable? It's important to clarify this, because
> it affects the interface, and also matters for future functions which I
> plan to write that allow libsemanage to validate seuser mls fields.

I think using a string for the MLS data is fine. I see no gain from further data hiding beyond that level.

> By the way, I am assuming that the way this will be done is by
> introducing (shared) interfaces to deal with mls ranges/levels. An
> alternative approach is to make sepol learn about seusers (by moving the
> seuser record into sepol), and dealing with this higher-level object,
> rather than the mls range directly. However, there's no reason to move
> the seuser record into sepol, other than for validation - seusers are
> not loaded into policy.

I don't think we want to move in that direction; seuser records should not be a sepol abstraction at all.

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency


--
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.