From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Amy Griffis <amy.griffis@hp.com>
Subject: Re: Watch Performance
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:01:04 -0400
Message-ID: <20060421150104.GA32595@zk3.dec.com>
References: <200604081221.58080.sgrubb@redhat.com>
	<200604110626.26843.sgrubb@redhat.com>
	<20060411161141.GA16506@zk3.dec.com>
	<200604111701.23649.sgrubb@redhat.com>
	<20060412211541.GA30952@zk3.dec.com>
	<1145287654.3590.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<20060417200656.GA31654@w-m-p.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060417200656.GA31654@w-m-p.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: linux-audit@redhat.com, redhat-lspp@redhat.com
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

Klaus Weidner wrote:     [Mon Apr 17 2006, 04:06:56PM EDT]
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 10:27:34AM -0500, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
> > Maybe this is a completely stupid thought, but what about the option of
> > adding a per-syscall filter list table, indexed by system-call number.
> 
> That's how LAuS worked... You'd need to support multiple lists to handle
> multiple personalities (ie 32bit code running on x86_64).
> 
> The amount of space used isn't too bad; it would also be possible to use
> reference counting to share entries for identical rules.

This approach makes a lot of sense to me.  I think it would be a good
next-step for audit filtering.