On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:31:27AM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote:
> > > BTW: The regex contains '=>' as optional part - is this really
> > > correct?
> > No, not correct, the parser requires the '<='.
>
> Since this patch touches RE_PROFILE_RLIMIT already, should I change
>
> +RE_PROFILE_RLIMIT =
> re.compile('^\s*set\s+rlimit\s+(?P<rlimit>[a-z]+)\s+(<=)?\s*(?P<value>[^ ]+)'
> + RE_COMMA_EOL)
>
> ^^^^^
> to
>
> +RE_PROFILE_RLIMIT =
> re.compile('^\s*set\s+rlimit\s+(?P<rlimit>[a-z]+)\s+<=\s*(?P<value>[^ ]+)' +
> RE_COMMA_EOL)
>
> ^^
> before commiting it?
>
> I just tested a bit - the whitespace around the arrow is optional, and
> the parser accepts "set rlimit nice<=0,". So the final of the regex
> would be:
>
> +RE_PROFILE_RLIMIT =
> re.compile('^\s*set\s+rlimit\s+(?P<rlimit>[a-z]+)\s*<=\s*(?P<value>[^ ]+)' +
> RE_COMMA_EOL)
>
> ^
>
> So should I change the patch to use the updated regex, or do you want a
> separate patch for that?Changing the patch is fine, to the last regex. (I hadn't realized that the whitespace around <= was entirely optional.) Thanks. -- Steve Beattie <[email protected]> http://NxNW.org/~steve/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
