Comment 27 for bug 306362

(In reply to comment #25)
> > Sorry, I don't understand this. Proposed patch fixes default rule that is
> > supposed to allow all requested replies. Why should it be bound to any
> > specific interface?
>
> I wasn't suggesting the system.conf change should be bound to a specific
> interface, just that we shouldn't rely on the destination interface in general
> (there is a note about this in the policy docs).

Do you refer to this: "Be careful with send_interface/receive_interface, because the interface field in messages is optional." ? We don't need this in such a generic rule.

> Right...hm. How useful are the receive rules in general? I guess you'd need
> them if you wanted to keep a signal private between services.

I guess send/receive rules split was made as a design decision for signal handling. For method_calls and method_returns, using single rule making point to point check would be more natural. Having to deal with both type of rules for these types of messages is bit clumsy.

> I was thinking this policy would allow root to own the service name, and any
> uid to send&receive messages from it, under the assumption that the service is
> using PolicyKit for fine grained permissions, or that it makes sense for any
> uid to be able to access it.

Ah, ok. Though this does not sound like a change that can easily fit as a fix into existing systems (some of them even pre-dating PolicyKit).