Re: SE-PostgreSQL/Lite Review
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Joshua Brindle <method@manicmethod.com>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2009-12-11T20:13:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh, * Joshua Brindle (method@manicmethod.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost wrote: >> I do think that, technically, there's no reason we couldn't allow for >> multiple "only-more-restrictive" models to be enabled and built in a >> single binary for systems which support it. As such, I would make those >> just "#if defined()" rather than "#elif". Let it be decided at runtime >> which are actually used, otherwise it becomes a much bigger problem for >> packagers too. > > It isn't just a case of using #if and it magically working. You'd need a > system to manage multiple labels on each object that can be addressed by > different systems. So instead of having an object mapped only to > "system_u:object_r:mydb_t:s15" you'd also have to have it mapped to, > eg., "^" for Smack. I'm not sure I see that being a problem.. We're going to have references in our object managers which make sense to us (eg: table OIDs) and then a way of mapping those to some label (or possibly a set of labels, as you describe). We might want to reconsider the catalog structure a bit if we want to support more than one at a time, but I don't see it as a huge problem to support more than one label existing for a given object. Thanks, Stephen