Re: [PATCH 1/2] add SIGNAL syscall class

[Amy Griffis <amy.griffis@hp.com>]

Steve Grubb wrote:  [Wed Feb 14 2007, 02:04:07PM EST]
> On Wednesday 14 February 2007 13:24:31 Amy Griffis wrote:
> > Add a syscall class for sending signals.
> 
> The intent of the syscall classes had been to make an update independent way 
> of being able to specify audit rules for filesystem auditing where new 
> syscalls could be added.

Yeah, I know I used it in a different way from the original purpose.
But I think this is still a valid use... When we are adding or
removing a rule, we need a way to determine if the rule specified one
of the syscalls for sending signals.

> I don't know if this grouping would be useful in practice. <shrug>

Yeah I wasn't sure either, so I didn't add the filtering part.

> What I have been thinking about is a grouping for delete and close.
> That would align with requirements on security standards people have
> to meet.

Makes sense. Do you think we're in danger of running out of slots for
syscall classes?

Amy