[apparmor] DBus rule syntax for subject and peer components

Seth Arnold seth.arnold at canonical.com
Thu Jun 20 22:30:12 UTC 2013

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:41:21AM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> * Revised Proposal 3 - subject=() and peer=()
> dbus [acquire] [<bus>] [subject=(<subject>)],
> dbus [send | receive] [<bus>] [subject=(<subject>)] [peer=(<peer>)],

> * Revised Proposal 3.5 - subject {} and peer {}
> dbus [acquire] [<bus>] [subject {<subject>}],
> dbus [send | receive] [<bus>] [subject {<subject>}] [peer {<peer>}],

I slightly prefer 3.5 to 3 -- the = just feels like more noise to me.

Given that 3 looks like it is getting the consensus :) I'd like to cast
a vote _against_ the following token definitions:

PEER		peer=(
SUBJECT		subject=(

Those just seem wrong :) and I wanted to make sure that whatever is used
allows whitespace to separate keywords and operators.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/apparmor/attachments/20130620/46593ed6/attachment.pgp>

More information about the AppArmor mailing list