On 04/11/2012 10:35 AM, Steve Beattie wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:27:48AM -0700, John Johansen wrote: >> On 04/11/2012 10:09 AM, Steve Beattie wrote: >>> 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, >>> >> that is close to what I intended, I did it as >> mount options=(ro,atime) /dev/foo, >> mount options=ro /dev/foo, >> mount options=atime /dev/foo, > > Wait, the mount options don't accumulate? So > > mount options=ro /dev/foo, > mount options=atime /dev/foo, > > would allow > > mount -o ro /dev/foo /some/mnt/location/ > > and > > mount -o atime /dev/foo /some/mnt/location/ > > but would not allow > > mount -o ro,atime /dev/foo /some/mnt/location/ > > ? This is seriously confusing. > How so? Within a single rule options set they do accumulate mount options=ro /dev/foo, mount options=atime /dev/foo,
are separate rules mount options in (ro,atime) /dev/foo, is a different rule and it is equivalent to the 3 rules mount options=ro /dev/foo, mount options=atime /dev/foo, mount options=(ro,atime) /dev/foo, not saying we couldn't treat 'in' as a straight up list of single '=' options but it always was a set to me. Also I haven't seen a reply to the other question. What shoule mount options=ro options=atime, mean? Should it be mount options=(ro,atime) as currently implemented, or should we change it to mean mount options=ro, mount options=atime, which is what sbeattie original thought it meant and after looking at it I think is more natural > > > -- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
