Sam Mason wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:27:12PM +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>> Indeed, the draft used the term of "security context" with minimum
>> introductions, but not enough friendliness for database folks.
>>
>> The purpose of security context is an identifier of any subject and
>> object to describe them in the security policy. Because the security
>> policy is common for operating system, databases, x-window and others,
>> any managed database objects needs its security context.
>>
>> Anyway, I need to introduce them in the security model section.
>
> I'm coming to the conclusion that you really need to link to external
> material here; there must be good (and canonical) definitions of these
> things outside and because SE-PG isn't self contained I really think you
> need to link to them.
>
> This will be somewhat of a break from normal PG documentation because
> so far everything has been self contained, it's chosen its own
> interpretation of the SQL standard and it needs to document that. SE-PG
> will be interacting with much more code from outside and showing which
> parts of these are PG specific vs. which parts are common to all SELinux
> seems important.
>
> If you try to document *everything* you're going to be writing for years
> and give the impression that everything is implemented in SE-PG. A
> dividing line needs to be drawn between what is PG specific and what is
> SELinux (why not SEL?).
It also seems to me reasonable suggestion.
However, a reasonable amount (which should be adjusted under discussions)
of description should be self-contained.
For example, "security context is a formatted short string" is not enough
to understand why it is necessary and what is the purpose.
As Robert suggested, a few example and definition of technical terms
will help database folks to understand what it is, even if self-contained
explanation is not comprehensive from viewpoint of security folks.
Thanks,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>