On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 16:16 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> --- James Morris <[email protected]> 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 ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
