Re: checkpolicy is broken (which is not)

[Joshua Brindle <method@manicmethod.com>]

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@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.