Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:16:57 -0700 (PDT) | From | Casey Schaufler <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND][RFC][PATCH 2/7] implementation of LSM hooks |
| |
--- 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |