On 05/10/2013 10:22 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 11:42 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 05/10/2013 08:24 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> Well, arguably the most consistent would be tweaking Steve's grouping
>>> slightly to
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:27:44AM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 05:06 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> > Alternatively, you could use some grouping, a la:
> >
> > profile SubjectA {
> >
> > dbus bus=session name=SubjectA.service acquire,
> > dbus bus=session name=SubjectA.service met
On 05/10/2013 11:42 AM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 08:24 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
...
>> Well, arguably the most consistent would be tweaking Steve's grouping
>> slightly to have a rule like this (my previous "I don't want commas for
On 05/10/2013 08:24 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
<< snip >>
>> Another option that retains the spirit of the multi-valued set (note the
>> commas within peer()) is:
>>
>> dbus peer (name=a.peer.address, interface=a.peer.interface) send,
>> net
On 05/10/2013 07:45 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 02:27 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 05:06 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:41:19PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
>
>>> I don't mind Jamie's proposed syntax above, I don't really care for
>>> "(send, re
On 05/10/2013 09:45 AM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 02:27 AM, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 05:06 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:41:19PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
>
>>> I don't mind Jamie's proposed syntax above, I don't really care for
>>> "(send, re
On 05/10/2013 02:27 AM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 05:06 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:41:19PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
>> I don't mind Jamie's proposed syntax above, I don't really care for
>> "(send, receive)" first, because having the dbus or network identi
On 05/09/2013 05:06 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:41:19PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 02:12 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>>> Perhaps the problem is that the mixture of optional clauses in the
>>> syntax which makes the placement of access rules awkward. Ie, w
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 02:41:19PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 02:12 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> > Perhaps the problem is that the mixture of optional clauses in the
> > syntax which makes the placement of access rules awkward. Ie, we always
> > must have:
> >
> > dbus ,
> >
>
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 03:27:24PM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > dbus [address spec] acquire, # unchanged
> > dbus [address spec] -> [address spec], # unidirectional
> > dbus [address spec] <- [address spec], # unidirectional
> > dbus [address spec] <-> [address spec], # bidirectional
> I'm all
On 05/09/2013 03:15 PM, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 03:08:35PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
>> it depends how you look at it. To me it is changing the meaning of ->
>> of course I am now convinced that -> is just wrong and we need different
>> syntax, because -> just seems to have t
On 2013-05-09 15:15:50, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 03:08:35PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> > it depends how you look at it. To me it is changing the meaning of ->
> > of course I am now convinced that -> is just wrong and we need different
> > syntax, because -> just seems to hav
On 2013-05-09 15:08:35, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 02:59 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > On 2013-05-09 14:51:38, John Johansen wrote:
> >> On 05/09/2013 02:39 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> >>> On 2013-05-09 14:30:32, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 02:13 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > On
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 03:08:35PM -0700, John Johansen wrote:
> it depends how you look at it. To me it is changing the meaning of ->
> of course I am now convinced that -> is just wrong and we need different
> syntax, because -> just seems to have too many potential different
> interpretations th
On 05/09/2013 02:59 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2013-05-09 14:51:38, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 02:39 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-09 14:30:32, John Johansen wrote:
On 05/09/2013 02:13 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2013-05-09 14:04:20, Seth Arnold wrote:
>> On Thu, Ma
On 2013-05-09 14:51:38, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 02:39 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > On 2013-05-09 14:30:32, John Johansen wrote:
> >> On 05/09/2013 02:13 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> >>> On 2013-05-09 14:04:20, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:45:04PM -0700, Tyler Hicks wr
On 2013-05-09 16:37:06, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 04:13 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>
> > Take this rule for example:
> >
> > dbus bus=session -> name=com.example.service path=/com/example/service
> > interface=com.example.service receive,
> >
> > If we adjust our thinking a little i
On 05/09/2013 02:39 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2013-05-09 14:30:32, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 02:13 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-09 14:04:20, Seth Arnold wrote:
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:45:04PM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> I think that we're mostly ok. We just need t
On 05/09/2013 04:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 02:12 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> Since *always* applies to , maybe it makes sense to
>> have it be next to it. Ie:
>>
>> dbus [] [],
>>
>> such that:
>>
>> profile subject {
>> dbus name=well.known.address acquire,
>> dbus na
On 05/09/2013 02:26 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 04:12 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>
>> Since *always* applies to , maybe it makes sense to
>> have it be next to it. Ie:
>>
>> dbus [] [],
>>
>> such that:
>>
>> profile subject {
>> dbus name=well.known.address acquire,
>> db
On 05/09/2013 02:12 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 03:35 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 01:20 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
profile subject {
On 2013-05-09 14:30:32, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 02:13 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > On 2013-05-09 14:04:20, Seth Arnold wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:45:04PM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> >>> I think that we're mostly ok. We just need to think about it a little
> >>> differently. H
On 05/09/2013 04:13 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> Take this rule for example:
>
> dbus bus=session -> name=com.example.service path=/com/example/service
> interface=com.example.service receive,
>
> If we adjust our thinking a little it could mean, "a message that flows
> FROM anywhere TO com.examp
On 05/09/2013 04:12 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 03:35 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 01:20 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
profile subject {
On 05/09/2013 02:13 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2013-05-09 14:04:20, Seth Arnold wrote:
>> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:45:04PM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>>> I think that we're mostly ok. We just need to think about it a little
>>> differently. Here's the current syntax:
>>>
>>> DBUS RULE = [ 'audit'
On 05/09/2013 02:04 PM, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:45:04PM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
>> I think that we're mostly ok. We just need to think about it a little
>> differently. Here's the current syntax:
>>
>> DBUS RULE = [ 'audit' ] [ 'deny' ] 'dbus' [ DBUS BUS ] [ ( DBUS LOCAL
On 05/09/2013 04:12 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> Since *always* applies to , maybe it makes sense to
> have it be next to it. Ie:
>
> dbus [] [],
>
> such that:
>
> profile subject {
> dbus name=well.known.address acquire,
> dbus name=well.known.address receive,
> dbus send -> name=a
On 2013-05-09 14:04:20, Seth Arnold wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:45:04PM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > I think that we're mostly ok. We just need to think about it a little
> > differently. Here's the current syntax:
> >
> > DBUS RULE = [ 'audit' ] [ 'deny' ] 'dbus' [ DBUS BUS ] [ ( DBUS LO
On 05/09/2013 03:35 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 01:20 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>>
>>> Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
>>>
>>> profile subject {
>>>
>>> dbus name=well.known.address acquire,
>>>
>>>
On 05/09/2013 01:45 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2013-05-09 13:35:11, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 01:20 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
profile subject {
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 01:45:04PM -0700, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> I think that we're mostly ok. We just need to think about it a little
> differently. Here's the current syntax:
>
> DBUS RULE = [ 'audit' ] [ 'deny' ] 'dbus' [ DBUS BUS ] [ ( DBUS LOCAL
> CONDITIONS | -> DBUS REMOTE CONDITIONS ) ] [
On 2013-05-09 13:37:00, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 01:32 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> > On 2013-05-09 15:20:56, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> >> On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
> >>>
> >>> profile subject
On 2013-05-09 13:35:11, John Johansen wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 01:20 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> > On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> >>
> >> Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
> >>
> >> profile subject {
> >>
> >> dbus name=well.known.address acquire,
On 05/09/2013 01:32 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2013-05-09 15:20:56, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
>> On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>>
>>> Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
>>>
>>> profile subject {
>>>
>>> dbus name=well.known.address acquire,
>>>
>>>
On 05/09/2013 01:20 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>>
>> Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
>>
>> profile subject {
>>
>> dbus name=well.known.address acquire,
>>
>> dbus name=well.known.address receive, #subject can r
On 2013-05-09 15:20:56, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
> >
> > Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
> >
> > profile subject {
> >
> > dbus name=well.known.address acquire,
> >
> > dbus name=well.known.address receive, #s
On 05/09/2013 02:41 PM, John Johansen wrote:
>
> Lets look at it as local (subject) address and remote/peer address
>
> profile subject {
>
> dbus name=well.known.address acquire,
>
> dbus name=well.known.address receive, #subject can receive messages on
> this well.known.address
>
> d
On 05/09/2013 12:18 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2013 schrieb John Johansen:
>> On 05/09/2013 07:16 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
>>> Could we just switch it to the way that is also used for send?
>>> I'd propose
>>>
>>> dbus name=sender.com -> name=receiver.com r
Hello,
Am Donnerstag, 9. Mai 2013 schrieb John Johansen:
> On 05/09/2013 07:16 AM, Christian Boltz wrote:
> > 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 th
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
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
> > inste
On 05/08/2013 05:23 PM, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2013-05-08 14:43:59, John Johansen wrote:
>> One of the decisions made last week while several us met at a sprint. Was
>> to change the dbus prototype syntax slightly to make it follow the same
>> general format of the proposed network/ipc rules.
>>
>
On 2013-05-08 14:43:59, John Johansen wrote:
> One of the decisions made last week while several us met at a sprint. Was
> to change the dbus prototype syntax slightly to make it follow the same
> general format of the proposed network/ipc rules.
>
> Currently this is just a syntactic change, no n
One of the decisions made last week while several us met at a sprint. Was
to change the dbus prototype syntax slightly to make it follow the same
general format of the proposed network/ipc rules.
Currently this is just a syntactic change, no new functionality is being
added at this time.
The chan
44 matches
Mail list logo
