From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian LaMere Subject: Re: no logging of successful events? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:49:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1219088976.6522.29.camel@orpheus.clinicomp.com> References: <1219086574.6522.8.camel@orpheus.clinicomp.com> <200808181518.34373.sgrubb@redhat.com> <1219087523.15566.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1219087523.15566.111.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com To: Eric Paris Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com was using a slightly older manpage, which doesn't include that helpful clarification :) Brian On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 15:25 -0400, Eric Paris wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 15:18 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Monday 18 August 2008 15:09:34 Brian LaMere wrote: > > > So...why is it that "LIST_RULES: exit,always success!=0 syscall=open" > > > doesn't disregard the successful calls? > > > > Because that means log the successful calls. If you only want the unsuccessful > > calls, I'd suggest success = 0. Its easy to confuse the success field with > > exits codes which return 0 for success. This question pops up every now and > > again. :) > > Isn't that why man auditctl talks about success=no and success=yes? So you don't have to remember? >