Re: PATH records show fcaps

[Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 06:56 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday 18 October 2008 11:23:12 Eric Paris wrote:
> > type=PATH msg=audit(1224342849.465:43): item=0 name="/bin/ping" inode=49227
> > dev=fd:00 mode=0100755 ouid=0 ogid=0 rdev=00:00
> > obj=system_u:object_r:ping_exec_t:s0 cap_permitted=0000000000002000
> > cap_inheritable=0000000000000000 
> 
> The kernel abbreviates these as: capprm & capinh in the proc file system. I'm 
> thinking shorter names would save some disk space.
> 
> > This good?  If either cap_permitted or cap_inheritable have anything set
> > I show them both.
> 
> And they are otherwise missing to save disk space?

Yes, see the example  :)

> > In the above example would you rather I only showed 
> > cap_permitted and dropped cap_inheritable?
> 
> No. Its my understanding that apps could have something inheritable by 
> children and we'd want to know exactly what that was.

Notice this record is only about the perms on the file.  My question was
that in the above example I have a capprm set on the file but I do not
have a capinh set on the file.  To save space would you rather I only
showed the capprm or should I show the 0 capinh as well?  The opposite
would also be true, if I had capinh set on a file but didn't have capprm
set should I display only the capinh or display both capinh and a blank
capprm?