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

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 16:16 -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.

audit != SELinux, simple as that
And yes audit on filenames is not too useful, but it is in some cases:
Consider the case where you want to log that someone tried to unlink
a file that doesn't exist. Inodes aren't going to do you any good ;)


-
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/