ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Ted Gould <ted@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 14:57 +0300, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> To make things more complicated, this exception should not be made on
> the content type, but on the receiving application: if one implements
> another video player application (in a normally confined click
> package)
> and it's asked to open the file via the url-dispatcher, it might not
> have the permissions to do so.
> 
> I can see two possible solutions:
> 
> Make URL-dispatcher smarter: on "file://" urls, if the file is
> unreadable by the receiving app...
> 
>   A) ... url-dispatcher somehow modifies the apparmor policy of the
>      receiving app, to grant it read access to the file.
>   B) ... url-dispatcher creates a copy of the file in a directory
>      readable by the receiver, and modifies the URL accordingly.
> 
> And actually, the content-hub could operate in a similar way: if we
> could alter the apparmor rules of the receiver application, we could
> avoid copying the files and just grant read-access to the app.
URL Dispatcher is only for cases where we switch applications and pass
some additional details along with that switch. Content Hub handles
content between application contexts.
Certainly Content Hub could not do copies in some cases. And we've
talked about it quite a few times before, it just has to make it to the
top of the TODO list.
Ted

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part