From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@hp.com>
Subject: Re: audit 1.2.7 released
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:26:03 -0400
Message-ID: <451195CB.9000909@hp.com>
References: <200609182013.40133.sgrubb@redhat.com>	<20060919210530.GA20125@fc.hp.com>	<1158779559.15340.145.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil>
	<200609201519.47804.sgrubb@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-audit-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <200609201519.47804.sgrubb@redhat.com>
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

Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 15:12, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> 
>>SELinux userland code isn't supposed to assume any fixed max.
>>libselinux does use an initial buffer size as a starting point when
>>calling e.g. getxattr, but will resize the buffer to a larger size if
>>necessary.
>  
> I try very hard to not have any memory allocations in the audit system to 
> prevent and possible failure due to fragmentation or leaks. I need to cap the 
> buffer size at something to meet this design goal.
> 

If this buffer limitation results in the loss or partial-loss of an
audit record is there some notification sent?  This seems like an
excellent way for an individual to obscure their actions on a system.

-- 
paul moore
linux security @ hp