Robert Haas wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:41 PM, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 2009/7/15 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>:
>>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> 2009/7/14 KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>:
>>>>>> On the other hand, db_schema class was designed as an analogy to
>>>>>> directoty in filesystems. SELinux defines several permissions on
>>>>>> "dir" object class, such as "add_name", "remove_name" and "search".
>>>>> I think that's a bad analogy and you need to make the permission names
>>>>> match the way PostgreSQL handles schema permissions generally.
>>>>> There's only so many times and ways to says this...
>>>> OK...
>>>> I can replace "search" by "usage".
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any alternative ideas for "add_name" and "remove_name"?
>>>
>>> Aack! Come on! Use whatever names those permissions already have!
>>> If there are no corresponding names, then rip them out!!!
>>
>> OK, I'll rip definitions of unused SELinux's permissions from
>> the permission table of SE-PgSQL.
>>
>> Is it correct for what you say?
>
> So the point we keep repeating here is that SEPostgreSQL should be doing
> the same kinds of permissions checks as regular PostgreSQL using the
> same names, code paths, etc. I don't know how to say it any more clearly
> than that.
Thanks, it makes clear for me.
> I will read through your latest version soon.
>
> ...Robert
>
--
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>