Skip to content

Clarify extended permission evaluation #48

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

eprucka3
Copy link

Adding documentation to clarify the automatic-deny evaluation when extended permissions are defined,
as well as the overall evaluation logic.

Copy link
Member

@dburgener dburgener left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the PR!

I think the overall idea that this needs more clarification is good, but I do have some comments hoping to clarify and sharpen the explanation a bit before we merge.

considered.

* If an extended permission rule is defined, the policy is first evaluated
according to the high-level resource policy. For example:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See above regarding "high-level resource policy". Additionally, I think this could spell out the situation more explicitly. After the AVC and constraint checks are performed, then the xperm checks will be applied.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That makes sense, thank you. I have updated this to clarify "standard AVC checks".

Adding documentation to clarify the automatic-deny
evaluation when extended permissions are defined,
as well as the overall evaluation logic.

Signed-off-by: Liz Prucka <[email protected]>
@eprucka3
Copy link
Author

I think the overall idea that this needs more clarification is good, but I do have some comments hoping to clarify and sharpen the explanation a bit before we merge.

Great, thank you for the review! I have attempted to clarify the explanation as per your comments, but please let me know if anything could use further clarification.

@eprucka3 eprucka3 requested a review from dburgener June 18, 2025 23:29
@dburgener
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the updates! This seems good to me now. My typical practice is to leave approved PRs up for a week or two in case any other maintainers have comments and then merge via direct push. In this case, since this has been open for a while and other maintainers have had some time, I'll probably plan to merge later this week.

@eprucka3
Copy link
Author

Great, thank you! That sounds good to me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants