From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Paris Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtual Key Fields Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:01:46 -0400 Message-ID: <1206367306.3192.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200803240927.35073.sgrubb@redhat.com> <1206366134.3192.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200803240952.28242.sgrubb@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200803240952.28242.sgrubb@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Steve Grubb Cc: Linux Audit List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 09:52 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Monday 24 March 2008 09:42:14 Eric Paris wrote: > > > Auditctl will also allow delete all rules matching a key. This will allow > > > the admin or a program to delete a set of rules related to just a > > > particular key and leave all other rules intact. > > > > How does this work? This is a completely new concept and it seems like > > it should be a second patch after you have multiple keys in to start > > with. > > This is all in user space so no kernel changes are needed. > > > > auditctl -a exit,always -w /tmp/file1 -k file1 -k shared-key > > auditctl -a exit,always -w /tmp/file2 -k file2 -k shared-key > > > > now if I say (and i'm just guessing your new syntax): > > > > auditctl -d -k shared-key > > I was only going to change the '-D' option (delete all). Assuming this was > typed: Ok, the fact that you only planned to do this with -D assuages all of my fears. Don't think it is strictly necessary in the first patch round, but at least I'm not scared of it any more :) -Eric