On 03/28/2014 02:48 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2014-03-28 07:20:07, John Johansen wrote:
>> fix: the what is treated and a condlistid
>
> huh? :)
sorry this is just messed up, let me resend
>
>>
>> The match
>> {VARIABLE_NAME}/{WS}*={WS}*\(
>>
>> is too broad causing mount and dbus rules to fail for sets of values eg.
>>
>> mount options=(ro bind)
>>
>> Instead of doing a broad match, for now lets lock it down to just
>> peer=(...) being the only cond that can cause entry into CONDLISTID
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Johansen <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> parser/parser_lex.l | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> --- 2.9-test.orig/parser/parser_lex.l
>> +++ 2.9-test/parser/parser_lex.l
>> @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@
>> }
>>
>> <INITIAL,MOUNT_MODE,DBUS_MODE,SIGNAL_MODE>{
>> - {VARIABLE_NAME}/{WS}*={WS}*\( {
>> + peer/{WS}*={WS}*\( {
>> /* we match to the = in the lexer so that we can switch scanner
>> * state. By the time the parser see the = it may be too late
>> * as bison may have requested the next token from the scanner
>> This patch needs the following additional patch on it
>>
>
> What happened here at the end of the patch? The diff headers tell me I
> can safely remove/ignore the "This patch needs the following additional
> patch on it" line, but I'm wondering if some of the patch was
> accidentally dropped?
>
> Tyler
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AppArmor mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
--
AppArmor mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
