Re: [RFC PATCH] New audit message for NetLabel static/fallback labels

[Paul Moore <paul.moore@hp.com>]

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 4:21:26 pm Linda Knippers wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > For reference, here are four examples of the new message types pulled
> > from a Fedora Rawhide machine running this patch:
> >
> >  * adding new fallback label using network interface "lo" and
> >    address "127.0.0.0/8"
> >
> >    type=UNKNOWN[1416] msg=audit(1195671777.849:32): netlabel: \
> >     auid=0 subj=root:system_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 \
> >     netif=lo daddr=127.0.0.0 daddr_mask=8 \
> >     sec_obj=system_u:object_r:unlabeled_t:s0 res=1
>
> At the risk of being nit-picky, it seems like the convention for network
> addresses is either separate address and netmask fields, or the combined
> address/bits-in-netmask notation.  For example, ifconfig (on ubuntu,
> anyway) uses the former for IPv4 and the later for IPv6 addresses.
>
> lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
>           inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
>           inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
>
> These audit records separate the two values but use the bits-in-netmask
> instead of the netmask in dot notation, which seems inconsistent to me.
> Seems like the audit record above should either have an address of
> 127.0.0.0/8 or an address of 127.0.0.0 and a netmask of 255.0.0.0.

I agree in that I like seeing the netmask attached to the address, but when I 
posed the question earlier to the list there was concern that this would 
cause breakage in the tools.  I just thought of something, would you be more 
comfortable if I changed the name from 'daddr_mask' to 'daddr_prefixlen'?

-- 
paul moore
linux security @ hp