Policies rules generated using "audit2allow -R" questions (risks)

I'm a selinux newbie using RHEL7.9 and I'm in the process of creating
a "private/application" selinux policy for a
large legacy application.

For some AVCs/denials I've been using the audit2allow to generate some
of the rules/interfaces to resolve the AVCs/denials.

Questions about using the "-R" option to generate the policy rules:

1. What are the risks of using the "-R" option?
Do people use the "interfaces" which the "-R" generates in the
policies deployed in production environments?
When "-R" is used, how does the tool itself determine which
"interface" to use?   Is it Linux distribution and release specific so
if we upgrade will it be a problem?

The redhat documentation and man page (and other vendor's
documentation) specify it is a risk to use this tool (see [1][2]).

2. When the "-R" option is not used, separate rules are generated that
do not include "interface" rules.
Is it safe to use the rules audit2allow generates (without "-R") or
are those a risk as well?

3. Any other suggestions for resolving AVCs/denials ?

[1]
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/selinux_users_and_administrators_guide/index#sect-Security-Enhanced_Linux-Fixing_Problems-Allowing_Access_audit2allow

[2] audit2allow man page
man audit2allow
...
       -R | --reference
              Generate reference policy using installed macros.  This
attempts to match denials  against  interfaces  and  may  be
              inaccurate.

Thanks

_______________________________________________
selinux mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure