From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Paris Subject: Re: [RFC] Do away with entry filter Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:14:04 -0500 Message-ID: <1235765644.3386.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200902270954.12237.sgrubb@redhat.com> <200902271240.12137.sgrubb@redhat.com> <49A8276E.3050806@hp.com> <200902271319.06607.sgrubb@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200902271319.06607.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@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:19 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Friday 27 February 2009 12:48:30 pm Linda Knippers wrote: > > I'm suggesting changing the name to something that makes a little > > more sense, or doing away with it if it isn't necessary for syscalls > > anymore. I'm assuming that's the case because there's no need to > > distinguish it from "entry", so could we just drop "exit" and > > ignore it (silently or otherwise) in the transition? > > We still have user, task, and exclude filters. So we still need to be able to > specify them. right, so lets call them user, task, exclude and SYSCALL rather than user, task, exclude and EXIT. /me will very happily mark the old rule format, entry, and task lists for kernel removal. Maybe around 2.6.31? .32? I could clean all the crap out. -Eric