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