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

Arjan van de Ven
2006-04-19T05:23:00Z

On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 16:16 -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.

audit != SELinux, simple as that
And yes audit on filenames is not too useful, but it is in some cases:
Consider the case where you want to log that someone tried to unlink
a file that doesn't exist. Inodes aren't going to do you any good ;)