On 11/07/2018 06:14 PM, Luis Ressel wrote:
Hello *, I've noticed the init_daemon_domain and init_spec_daemon_domain interfaces contain quite a bit of duplicated code. As can be seen from the patch I just [two weeks ago, but this mail unfortunately didn't go out back then due to a problem on my end] posted, this has already caused bugs. Ideally, init_daemon_domain should just call init_spec_daemon_domain and only add a typetransition statement on top of it. However, this is
I'm inclined to accept a patch that will make this so, regardless of the below concerns, since there are no usages in refpolicy.
currently not possible because those two interfaces differ in some aspects: * i_d_d grants the daemon nscd_use() permissions, while i_s_d_d doesn't. This is most likely an oversight too. * i_d_d permits transitions from initrc_t to the daemon domain, while i_s_d_d permits transitions from init_t. This is thoroughly odd. My expectation was that i_s_d_d would allow transitions from initrc_t too, and as far as I understand the situation, transitions directly from init_t do a daemon domain only happen with systemd. * The ifdef(init_systemd) blocks of the two interfaces are very different. Could someone familiar with the systemd policy please comment on this? * i_s_d_d obviously grants init_t (and initrc_t if that is added in the future) self:process setexec permissions, while i_d_d doesn't. This makes sense, of course, but if we can fix the three other differences I already mentioned, I don't believe this difference alone should block my proposed change. Thanks, Luis
-- Chris PeBenito
