From: Robert Love <rml@novell.com>
To: Timothy Chavez <chavezt@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sds@epoch.ncsc.mil,
ttb@tentacle.dhs.org
Subject: Re: [audit] Upstream solution for auditing file system objects
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 23:45:30 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1102653930.6052.231.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f2833c7604120920386e790b26@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 04:38 +0000, Timothy Chavez wrote:
> Right, but we like inotify and want to see it succeed :-)! We also
> want an upstream solution, so playing nicely is essential.
Awesome. ;)
I'm not adverse to doing the auditing in a generic hook mechanism, at
all, assuming that LSM hooks and the other options are not the preferred
and optimal solution.
> > So my position would be that I am all for moving the inotify hooks to
> > generic file change hooks, but that needs to be done either once inotify
> > is in the kernel proper or as a separate project. Then inotify can be
> > one consumer of the hooks and auditing another.
>
> It's a reasonable compromise and it'll have to be considered and discussed.
I've actually been thinking of doing this anyhow, because we currently
have both dnotify and inotify hooks in the filesystem code. But one
thing at a time.
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-10 4:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-10 0:02 [audit] Upstream solution for auditing file system objects Timothy Chavez
2004-12-10 1:46 ` Chris Wright
2004-12-10 2:50 ` Timothy Chavez
2004-12-10 3:42 ` Robert Love
2004-12-10 4:38 ` Timothy Chavez
2004-12-10 4:45 ` Robert Love [this message]
2004-12-10 4:59 ` Chris Wright
2004-12-10 5:22 ` John McCutchan
2004-12-10 7:36 ` Jan Engelhardt
2004-12-10 2:28 ` James Morris
2004-12-10 5:41 ` John McCutchan
2004-12-10 13:00 ` Paul Rolland
2004-12-10 14:29 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-12-10 16:35 ` Timothy Chavez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1102653930.6052.231.camel@localhost \
--to=rml@novell.com \
--cc=chavezt@gmail.com \
--cc=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sds@epoch.ncsc.mil \
--cc=ttb@tentacle.dhs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox