On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 19:22 +0300, Vincas Dargis wrote: > On 7/25/18 4:38 PM, Jamie Strandboge wrote: > > I like the idea of tunables/env and tunables/env.d. With env.d, it > > seems that system administrators could just drop something in there > > instead of needing to use /etc/apparmor.d/local/tunables/env? > > It could, but that's gamble against name clashing with some package > installed in the future. Idea > with env.d is that it should be populated only by packages. > I just looked in home.d and was reminded that there is a site.local file there that is shipped by the apparmor package. Rather than adding another location, apparmor upstream could ship something similar in env.d and that would be in the apparmor package (and thus avoid conflicts).
-- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
