Hello,
Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2016, 10:01:47 CET schrieb John Johansen:
> +verify_binary_equality "dconf read" \
> + "/t { dconf r /, }" \
> + "/t { dconf read /, }"
> +
> +verify_binary_equality "dconf read-write" \
> + "/t { dconf /, }" \
> + "/t { dconf rw /, }" \
> + "/t { dconf wr /, }" \
> + "/t { dconf (read write) /, }" \
> + "/t { dconf (write read) /, }" \
> + "/t { dconf (read, write) /, }"
Does it really make sense to allow short and long versions for the
permissions?
IMHO the only thing we gain is more code to parse it and confusing
documentation ;-) so I'd propose to keep it simple and just allow r and
rw. Mabe even wr if someone wants to be creative ;-)
If we really decide to allow long and short permissions, will
dconf ( wr ) /,
(with the parenthesis around the permissions) be a valid rule?
Regards,
Christian Boltz
--
I just started a little project: the openSUSE Spring of Code.
It has many advantages over similiar projects, most prominently it's
all about honor and you don't have to care how to pay taxes on money.
[Stephan Kulow in opensuse-factory]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- AppArmor mailing list AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
