Eric Paris wrote:
On 08/05/2011 12:58 PM, James Carter wrote:
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 08:56 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
I don't think we should introduce an incompatible policy language change
without very strong reasons. It is fine to introduce new constructs
like your role...attribute construct, but we shouldn't change the
meaning of role...type statements and thereby render invalid policies
that used to be valid.
In the up and coming CIL compiler, declaration and use are always
separate, so user, role, and type rules are only used to declare. There
are typealias, typeattribute, and other such rules to define
associations. For a role there is a separate roletype rule to associate
a type with a role.
So if roletype and roleattribute rules were created for the current
toolchain, the current role rule would not have to be changed. Newer
policies could use the role rule only to declare a role, but it could
still be used in the old way for backwards compatibility.
Sounds to me like there is enough interest in compatiblity that we
should make the current toolchain continue to allow the old role X type
Y rules to also be a declaration. In the new CIL toolchain we will make
the syntax more strict and require better policy definitions. Harry, is
this patch something you can take a moment and write? Thanks!
Wait, what interest? From my count Dan doesn't care, Jim doesn't care, I
am for breaking it and SDS's latest email seems to be against implicit
declarations (and declaration ambiguity).
--
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.
