On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:56:58AM -0700, John Johansen wrote: > So for the > >> "When both = and in conditional operators are used the options within > >> each condition type can be combined and split interchangeably." > > is for within a single rule > > that is to say > > mount options=ro options=atime /dev/foo, > > is equivalent to > mount options=(ro, atime) /dev/foo, > > not > mount options=ro /dev/foo, > mount options=atime /dev/foo, > > though now thinking about it, this last interpretation might be better. > It is not to late to change this, so I would like opions
For the record, what I was hoping/exoecting the 'in' syntax would accomplish was eliminating the need to write stuff like the latter; i.e. that mount options in (ro, atime) /dev/foo, would be equivalent to mount options=ro /dev/foo, mount options=atime /dev/foo, and not mount options=ro /dev/foo, mount options=rw /dev/foo, mount options=atime /dev/foo, mount options=noatime /dev/foo, That said, I can kind of see the consistency argument, where multiple options= entries are like multiple permission modes (r, w, m) on file permissions. -- Steve Beattie <[email protected]> http://NxNW.org/~steve/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
