[apparmor] DBus rule syntax for subject and peer components

Christian Boltz apparmor at cboltz.de
Fri Jun 21 18:21:15 UTC 2013


(sorry for being late - but you chose the right things anyway ;-)

Am Donnerstag, 20. Juni 2013 schrieb Tyler Hicks:
> Proposals that were decisively approved through voting:
> * Proposal 3.1 - Change subj= to subject=
> * Proposal 3.2 - Move the access to the front


> Unfortunately, the way that I laid out the proposals in the last email
> did not result in clear decision on whether people preferred the
> original Proposal 3's grouping like subject=() or Proposal 3.5's
> subject {} style.
> I've revised the profiles to include what we have already approved.
> I'm asking for a *quick* set of responses to finalize this today.
> * Revised Proposal 3 - subject=() and peer=()


> * Revised Proposal 3.5 - subject {} and peer {}

I don't like {} in this case, therefore -1 ;-)

As Seth noted, you also replaced = with a space in proposal 3.5. 
Can we keep this in sync with other keywords, please?

We already have flags=(...) (where "flags=" is optional), and I remember 
that we discussed "owner=(foo)" (not implemented yet).

IIRC we don't have anything in the "keyword (...)" style (am I correct?) 
so I'd prefer to use =

BTW: I'd prefer to avoid multiline syntax - it might be "for free" in 
the parser, but for apparmor.vim it's more difficult ;-)


Christian Boltz
> ich hatte gestern Abend einen merkwürdigen Absturz und wollte
> mal fragen, ob mir das evtl. einer von euch erklären kann.
*Rotfl* Das kann vorkommen. Weißt du noch mit wem Du unterwegs
warst? Was ist das Letzte, an das Du Dich erinnerst? ;-)
[> Thomas Gräber und Thorsten Körner in suse-linux]

More information about the AppArmor mailing list