From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: auditctl se_sen & se_clr
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 15:39:31 -0400
Message-ID: <200605191539.31408.sgrubb@redhat.com>
References: <446DDF21.4080808@us.ibm.com>
	<1148066375.3469.232.camel@code.and.org>
	<446E1CCD.4090805@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <446E1CCD.4090805@us.ibm.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
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
List-Id: linux-audit@redhat.com

On Friday 19 May 2006 15:30, Michael C Thompson wrote:
> This leads me to believe either our definition of se_sen is wrong, or if
> our definition of se_sen is correct, then the implementation of se_sen
> has some bug in it.

You may need to take this discussion to the LSPP mail list where more SE Linux 
folks are watching. Darryl and Dustin did that work. Might be good to ask 
Darryl about this.

-Steve