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

Casey Schaufler
2006-04-18T23:16:59Z

--- 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.

Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com