Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

I revised the SE-PostgreSQL Specifications:
 http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SEPostgreSQL_Draft

- Put several external link to introduce something too detail for PostgreSQL documentations.
- Paid attention not to use undefined terminology, such as "security context", "security policy" and "mandatory access
controls".
- Revised whole of the composition in the "Brief overview" section.
- Put an example of security policy rule.
- "SECURITY_LABEL" option was replaced by "SECURITY_CONTEXT" to avoid meaningless confusion.

I believe it become better than previous revision.

Thanks,

KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> 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,


-- 
OSS Platform Development Division, NEC
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>