From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Klaus Weidner Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPC_SET_PERM cleanup Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 09:51:39 -0500 Message-ID: <20060509145139.GA31457@w-m-p.com> References: <445BB351.2040303@hp.com> <200605051642.05999.sgrubb@redhat.com> <445BBCC5.3010306@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k49F05QS016366 for ; Tue, 9 May 2006 11:00:05 -0400 Received: from mail.atsec.com (mail.atsec.com [195.30.252.105]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k49F003k031547 for ; Tue, 9 May 2006 11:00:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <445BBCC5.3010306@hp.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: Linda Knippers Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 04:59:49PM -0400, Linda Knippers wrote: > Steve Grubb wrote: > > This patch deletes the context string out of this record. Are we losing > > anything important? > > I don't think so. I don't think the IPC_SET operations change the sid > (at least I don't see it in the code) so its redundant with the obj information > that's in the IPC record. If I'm missing it, I hope someone will point > it out to me. I agree that it's redundant. This is the sub-record that describes the requested changes to object properties, and any information that can't be changed through IPC_SET doesn't need to be in it. The information about the current state of the object and subject is in separate sub-records. -Klaus