Re: excessively verbose policy

[Daniel J Walsh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  I was writing policy today, and I couldn't help notice a lot of
>  repetitiveness in our policy:
>  
>  	libs_use_ld_so(...)
>  	libs_use_shared_libs(...)
>  
>  These are needed by, well, everything. Can't they be assumed-unless-denied?
>  
>  Similarly, 99% of confined apps need:
>  
>  	miscfiles_read_localization()
>  	files_read_etc_files(.)
>          pipes & stream sockets
>  
>  Is there a way to streamline policy so there is a lot less
>  repetition?
>  
>  Bill
>  
>  --
>  fedora-selinux-list mailing list
>  fedora-selinux-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-selinux-list 
We have talked about
this in the past, and so far it has not gone
anywhere.  The original goal when refpolicy policy was first written was
to allow more fine grained control then the example policy, which
grouped large amounts of access rules within a single macro.
(can_network) for example.  So we wanted to avoid this, and perhaps the
pendulum swung too far to the opposite degree.


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAke+0oIACgkQrlYvE4MpobPd5gCfYpoWTHLDhsCf1Ae1oTQFv4dA
> AukAn0voXayQTmjDZm+AvEWoFyU2n/Rz
> =sl9z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----