From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: PATH records show fcaps
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:00:19 -0400
Message-ID: <1224543619.3189.193.camel@paris-laptop>
References: <1224343392.3189.74.camel@paris-laptop>
	<20081020163104.GA21901@us.ibm.com>
	<1224521741.3189.100.camel@paris-laptop>
	<200810201852.40308.sgrubb@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <200810201852.40308.sgrubb@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-audit>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit>,
	<mailto:linux-audit-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com
To: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 18:52 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Monday 20 October 2008 12:55:41 Eric Paris wrote:
> > > Steve's suggestion of cap_prm and cap_inh are good for being shorter and
> > > matching proc output.  But OTOH it's a bit confusing as at first I
> > > thought these were the task's values.  Would it be too terse to just
> > > use fP and fI?
> >
> > yes, too terse. How about cap_fP, cap_fI, cap_fVer, cap_fEffBit ?
> >
> > Based on your other comments I'm going to go add fVer and fEffBit.
> 
> We don't have any audit fields with mixed cases in the field name. Let's not 
> start it so that searches stay simple.

even your /proc example has mixed case   :(

so choices

1) cap_fP, cap_fE, cap_fI
2) cap_fp, cap_fe, cap_fi
3) capprm_file, capeff_file, capinh_file

If steve feels strongly about not going down #1 (which obviously I
liked!) I vote #2.....

-Eric