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

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 04:16:57PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> 
> 
> --- 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.

Sure you can log the pathname to comply with useless
standards.  It doesn't make it any more meaningfull,
though.
-
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/