From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit=0 appears not to completely disable auditing
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:17:01 -0400
Message-ID: <16942.1175541421@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <200703091550.11104.sgrubb@redhat.com>
	<20070322214519.GA15039@fc.hp.com>
	<200703221755.45802.sgrubb@redhat.com>
	<20070402185711.GA21145@fc.hp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1592516937=="
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:57:11 EDT."
	<20070402185711.GA21145@fc.hp.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: Amy Griffis <amy.griffis@hp.com>
Cc: Linux Audit <linux-audit@redhat.com>
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

--===============1592516937==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1175541421_5877P";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--==_Exmh_1175541421_5877P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 14:57:11 EDT, Amy Griffis said:
> Steve Grubb wrote:  [Thu Mar 22 2007, 05:55:45PM EDT]
> > > If you want audit_enabled=0 to turn off audit completely, do you also
> > > want to drop selinux messages?
> > 
> > No, the SE Linux folks want avc messages at all times unless the admin 
> > specifically sets a rule to suppress them. 
> 
> Okay, makes sense. Do you think audit should return an error if
> someone tries to add a rule when audit_enabled=0 ?

Yes, probably.  You'd kind of think that the human doing the auditing would
like a large and loud complaint if auditing had been accidentally disabled.

The only question is what behavior it should have if a site (for whatever
reason) decides to first load all the rules, then enable auditing (possibly
to avoid spurious complaints about processes because not all the rules have
been loaded yet).

--==_Exmh_1175541421_5877P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001

iD8DBQFGEVatcC3lWbTT17ARAnJxAJ0fFIdVV8Sra5ma1v7uFlh4nkoqjwCfRkEO
3E3uus413C3VbjFUS02ZMi0=
=7BJg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--==_Exmh_1175541421_5877P--


--===============1592516937==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline


--===============1592516937==--