Re: [PATCH V5 0/5] audit by executable name

Richard Guy Briggs
2014-10-29T19:48:40Z

On 14/10/21, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 06:19:52 PM Eric Paris wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 17:56 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > * Change the audit_status.version field comment in
> > > include/uapi/linux/audit.h to "/* audit functionality bitmap */", or
> > > similar. We can't really change the structure now, but the comment is
> > > fair game.
> >
> > Trying to think how to do things with a #define so you can rename,
> > "version" is pretty darn generic to pre-process. You could make it a
> > union, so userspace code and use a sane name....
>
> Yeah, I thought about suggesting the #define approach but figured that might
> just be me worrying about the color of the paint ... okay, Richard, why don't
> you go ahead and change the version field name and put in a #define for
> compatibility.

The #define is a nice way to work around backward compatibility.

> > > Can anyone think of anything else that might be affected by this?
> >
> > No one uses this stuff, just change it.
>
> Yes, but I feel like I need to at least ask the question; how much attention I
> pay to the answers is something else ...

I'm still skeptical this won't blow up... Like the capabilities bitmap
did. I suspect there isn't agreement on what constitutes a feature. We
just added a set/get features bitmap a year ago for things to be turned
on/off and locked... How does this features bitmap fit in with that
features config?

I don't disagree that a bitmap would be more useful for various
distributions to pick and choose that which they choose to support over
a version number that won't tell the whole story.

> paul moore

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <rbriggs@redhat.com>
Senior Software Engineer, Kernel Security, AMER ENG Base Operating Systems, Red Hat
Remote, Ottawa, Canada
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635, Alt: +1.613.693.0684x3545