Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks

[Casey Schaufler]

--- James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> No.  The inode design is simply correct.

If this were true audit records would not be required
to contain path names. Names are important. To meet
EAL requirements path names are demonstrably
insufficient, but so too are inode numbers. Unless
you want to argue that Linux is unevaluateable
(a pretty tough position to defend) because it
requires both in an audit record you cannot claim
either is definitive.


Casey Schaufler
casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/