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: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl_at_lkcl.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:13:51 +0000
> 3) What should happen with rules between the parent and itself? It i would expect syntax allow parent_t self:process sigkill to be inherited to "allow child_t self:process sigkill" and expect "allow parent_t parent_t:process sigkill to be inherited to "allow child_t parent_t:process sigkill" except that wouldn't work if there's a "special" meaning given to "self:". there's no special meaning given to self: is there? it's just for convenience in case you want to change the name of the domain, isn't it?
> 4) What should happen with transition rules that involve the parent? In subdivide the parent domain into rules which you do want to be inherited, and those that you do not. derive a child domain that gives you the original one, so you don't have any code uses to change. derive other domains from the smaller parent one. 5) what about multiple inheritance? syntax should allow for such - to combine two parent sets into one child domain. l. -- 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 - 10:10:07 EST |
|
Date Posted: Jan 15, 2009 | Last Modified: Jan 15, 2009 | Last Reviewed: Jan 15, 2009 |