On 05/09/2013 07:16 AM, Christian Boltz wrote: > Hello, > > Am Mittwoch, 8. Mai 2013 schrieb John Johansen: >> On 05/08/2013 05:23 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote: >>> On 2013-05-08 14:43:59, John Johansen wrote: >>> The arrow notation make sense in this example, but I just realized >>> how confusing it is if we need to specify the receive permission >>> instead of send: >>> >>> dbus name=foo.com -> name=bar.com receive, >>> >>> That rule allows foo.com to receive a message from bar.com but the >>> arrow is backwards from what the rule actually does. >>> >>> I know we talked about using 'peer' or '|' instead of '->' and I >>> thought that '->' looked the best, but now I'm thinking that it >>> might be the most confusing of the options that we discussed. :/ >> >> I am open to suggestions >> >> <- >> <-> >> >> or maybe the different symbols depending on the perm? > > What about fixing the syntax instead? ;-) > > If I understand you right, the current syntax is > dbus name=receiver.com -> name=sender.com receive, > > Independent on the arrow, it looks confusing to me because the receiver > is mentioned first. > > Could we just switch it to the way that is also used for send? > I'd propose > dbus name=sender.com -> name=receiver.com receive, > > Advantages are: > - we can keep the arrow > - same order for send and receive (s/receive,/send,/ and you have the > rule for the sending program) >
Well this doesn't fix the syntax because we have dbus name=receiver.con acquire, dbus name=receiver.com -> name=sender.com send, dbus name=receiver.com -> name=sender.com (send, receive), dbus -> name=sender.com receive, dbus name=receiver.com receive, dbus receive, -- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
