On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 15:53 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote: > Christopher J. PeBenito wrote: > >>> 2. the stored procedure type names have been in the back of my mind for > >>> long time but I couldn't come up with a good naming scheme. This > >>> especially bugged me for the sepgsql_trusted_domain_t and > >>> sepgsql_trusted_proc_t. Why not just go with what we do with regular > >>> domains and executables: sepgsql_trusted_proc_t and > >>> sepgsql_trusted_proc_exec_t? > >> I don't have a clear reason for the naming of them. > >> sepgsql_trusted_proc_t and sepgsql_trusted_proc_exec_t are more suitable > >> for the purpose, I also think. > > > > It seems that we should also rename $1_sepgsql_proc_t for consistency. > > Sorry for late reply. > > At first, $1_sepgsql_proc_t lost the term of "trusted", so its name > does not shows its purpose. No, I mean having a $1_sepgsql_proc_t and $1_sepgsql_proc_exec_t. -- Chris PeBenito Tresys Technology, LLC (410) 290-1411 x150 -- This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list. If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
