Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks

Christoph Hellwig
2006-04-18T23:19:12Z

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 04:16:57PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
>
> --- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
>
>
> > No. The inode design is simply correct.
>
> If this were true audit records would not be required
> to contain path names. Names are important. To meet
> EAL requirements path names are demonstrably
> insufficient, but so too are inode numbers. Unless
> you want to argue that Linux is unevaluateable
> (a pretty tough position to defend) because it
> requires both in an audit record you cannot claim
> either is definitive.

Sure you can log the pathname to comply with useless
standards. It doesn't make it any more meaningfull,
though.