From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Grubb Subject: Re: [RFC] Do away with entry filter Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:40:11 -0500 Message-ID: <200902271240.12137.sgrubb@redhat.com> References: <200902270954.12237.sgrubb@redhat.com> <49A81B59.1050608@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49A81B59.1050608@hp.com> Content-Disposition: inline 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 Friday 27 February 2009 11:56:57 am Linda Knippers wrote: > > Let's discuss... > > Without "entry", does "exit" still make sense? You mean the name? I think so for a compatibility perspective. Not everyone will change their rules right away. Are you suggesting to rename the exit filter to something more generic? > In other words, are the choices really just "always" and "never"? For syscall, yes. There are still task, exclude, and user filters. Of these, I can't think of any use for the task filter anymore either. I think at one time it, too, was envisioned to help select the right tasks for auditing. > If we're going to change things, is this an opportunity to simplify in > general? I wouldn't mind losing task filter, too. But I was thinking mostly of the case where entry rules identify a syscal is auditable and then the exit filter is 99% of the time walked in its entirety before deciding nothing to do. -Steve